5:13-cv-00982 - #40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

CLEOPATRA DE LEON, NICOLE DIMETMAN
VICTOR HOLMES, and MARK PHARISS,
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiffs, NO !"#$%&'%()*%OL+

'

RICK PERR,, in -is .ffi&ial &a/a&it0 as
+.'12n.2 .f t-1 Stat1 .f T13as4 +RE+ A55OTT,
in -is .ffi&ial &a/a&it0 as T13as Att.2n10 +1n12al4
+ERARD RICKHOFF, in -is .ffi&ial &a/a&it0 as
513a2 C.6nt0 Cl1274 and DAVID LAKE,, in -is
.ffi&ial &a/a&it0 as C.88issi.n12 .f t-1 T13as
D1/a2t81nt .f Stat1 H1alt- S12'i&1s,

D1f1ndants

STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 39
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ta9l1 .f A6t-.2iti1s i'
I Plaintiffs M6st Ma71 a :Cl1a2 S-.;in<= T-at T-10 A21 Entitl1d
t. t-1 :E3t2a.2dina20 R181d0= .f a P21li8ina20 In>6n&ti.n $
II Plaintiffs Ha'1 N.t Mad1 a Cl1a2 S-.;in< T-at T-10 A21 Li71l0
t. P21'ail .n t-1 M12its $
A Baker v. Nelson Is 5indin< S6/2181 C.62t P21&1d1nt
T-at F.21&l.s1s Plaintiffs? Clai8s $
5 T13as Ma22ia<1 La; D.1s N.t Vi.lat1 Plaintiffs? Ri<-t t.
Ma220 (
C T13as Ma22ia<1 La; Is N.t S69>1&t t. H1i<-t1n1d E@6al%
P2.t1&ti.n S&26tin0 #A
D T13as Ma22ia<1 La; Satisfi1s Rati.nal%5asis R1'i1; #B
# Plaintiffs fail1d t. :&l1a2l0 s-.;= t-at t-121 is n.
&.n&1i'a9l1 2ati.nal 9asis f.2 T13as 8a22ia<1 la; #C
* T13as 8a22ia<1 la; ad'an&1s t-1 Stat1?s 'ital
int121st in 21s/.nsi9l1 /2.&21ati.n and
&-ild21a2in< #)
$ Plaintiffs? Ass12ti.n .f Ani86s Is 5as1l1ss *D
E T13as?s R1f6sal t. R1&.<niE1 Sa81%S13 Ma22ia<1s f2.8
Ot-12 Stat1s D.1s N.t Vi.lat1 Plaintiffs? D61%P2.&1ss .2
E@6al%P2.t1&ti.n Ri<-ts *#
III T-1 5alan&1 .f t-1 Ha28s Fa'.2s t-1 Stat1 *A
IV A P21li8ina20 In>6n&ti.n W.6ld Diss12'1 t-1 P69li& Int121st 90
F.29iddin< Enf.2&181nt .f D18.&2ati&all0 Ena&t1d La;,
Dist629in< t-1 Stat6s F6., and C21atin< C.nf6si.n and
Un&12taint0 f.2 D1f1ndants and Sa81%S13 C.6/l1s Ali71 *!
A Enf.2&181nt .f D6l0 Ena&t1d La; Is In-121ntl0 in t-1
P69li& Int121st *!
5 A P21li8ina20 In>6n&ti.n W.6ld Und128in1 t-1 P69li&
Int121st 90 C-an<in< t-1 Stat6s F6. *B
iii
C A P21li8ina20 In>6n&ti.n W.6ld C21at1 N6812.6s L1<al
and P2a&ti&al P2.9l18s f.2 Sa81%S13 C.6/l1s and
D1f1ndants *B
D Plaintiffs Ha'1 N.t :Cl1a2l0 S-.;n= T-at a P21li8ina20
In>6n&ti.n W.6ld N.t Diss12'1 t-1 P69li& Int121st *)
C.n&l6si.n *)
C12tifi&at1 .f S12'i&1 $D

i'
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Adams v. Howerton,
A)B F S6// ###( GCD Cal #()DH #)
Agostini v. Felton,
!*# US *D$ G#((CH !
Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp,
!** US *** G#(()H **
Baker v. Nelson,
#(# NW*d #)! GMinn #(C#H A, #B
Baker v. Nelson,
AD( US )#D G#(C*H passim
Ben-Shalom v. Marsh,
))# F*d A!A GCt- Ci2 #()(H #!
Cervantes v. Guerra,
B!# F*d (CA G!t- Ci2 #()# Unit AH A, )
Citizens or !"ual #rot. v. Bruning,
A!! F$d )!( G)t- Ci2 *DDBH #!, #B, #C
Coal. or !$on. !"uit% v. &ilson,
#** F$d C#) G(t- Ci2 #((CH *A
Cook v. Gates,
!*) F$d A* G#st Ci2 *DD)H #A
'ean v. 'istri$t o Colum(ia,
B!$ A*d $DC GDC#((!H #B
'ennis Melan$on) *n$. v. Cit% o New +rleans,
CD$ F$d *B* G!t- Ci2 *D#*H *A
'ist. Attorne% +i$e or ,hird -udi$ial 'ist. v. +s(orne,
#*( S Ct *$D) G*DD(H #D, ##
!"ual. Found. + Greater Cin$innati v. Cit% o Cin$innati,
#*) F$d *)( GBt- Ci2 #((CH #A%#!
'
FCC v. Bea$h Comm$.ns) *n$.,
!D) US $DC G#(($H #B, #C
Frontiero v. /i$hardson,
A## US BCC G#(C$H )
Goodridge v. 'ep.t o #u(. Health,
C() NE*d (A# GMass *DD$H #(
Grigs(% v. /ei(,
#!$ SW ##*A GT13 #(#$H *
Hast% v. /ust !ng0g Co.,
C*B F*d #DB) G!t- Ci2 #()AH A
Heller v. 'oe,
!D( US $#* G#(($H #B, #C
Hi$ks v. Miranda,
A** US $$* G#(C!H A, !
High ,e$h Ga%s v. 'e. *ndus. Se$. Clearan$e +i$e,
)(! F*d !B$ G(t- Ci2 #((DH #!
*llinois Bell ,elephone Co. v. &orldCom ,e$hnologies) *n$.,
#!C F$d !DD GCt- Ci2 #(()H *!
*n re Marriage o -.B. and H.B,
$*B SW$d B!A GT13 A//IDallas *D#D, /1t <2ant1dH #, #B
-ames v. Hertzog,
A#! F1d A//3 !$D G!t- Ci2 *D##H #A
-ohnson v. -ohnson,
$)! F$d !D$ G!t- Ci2 *DDAH #A
-ones v. Hallahan,
!D# SW*d !)) GK0 Ct A// #(C$H #B
1.'.F. v. /e2,
)C) SW*d !)( GT13 #((AH **
3awren$e v. ,e2as,
!$( US !!) G*DD$H !, B, #!
3eCler$ v. &e((,
A#( F$d AD! G!t- Ci2 *DD!H #B
'i
3oton v. Se$.% o the 'ep.t o Children 4 Famil% Servs.,
$!) F$d )DA G##t- Ci2 *DDAH #!, #(
3oughran v. 3oughran,
*(* US *#B G#($AH **
3oving v. 5irginia,
$)) US # G#(BCH ##, #(
Mandel v. Bradle%,
A$* US #C$ G#(CCH A
Martinez v. Mathews,
!AA F*d #*$$ G!t- Ci2 #(CBH *B
Mar%land v. 1ing,
#$$ S Ct # G*D#*H *A
Ma%nard v. Hill,
#*! US #(D G#)))H #(
Mazurek v. Armstrong,
!*D US (B) G#((CH $
M$Carth% v. #hila. Civil Serv. Comm.n,
A*A US BA! G#(CBH A, )
M$'onald v. Cit% o Chi$ago,
#$D S Ct $D*D G*D#DH #D
Mi$hael M. v. Superior Court,
A!D US ABA G#()#H *#
New Motor 5ehi$le Bd. v. +rrin &. Fo2 Co.,
A$A US #$A! G#(CCH *A
#ennhurst State S$h. and Hosp. v. Halderman,
AB! US )( G#()AH *#
#err% v. Brown,
BC# F$d #D!* G(t- Ci2 *D#*H #!
#err%. v. S$hwarzenegger,
N. #D%#BB(B G(t- Ci2 *D#DH *C
#ri$e-Cornelison v. Brooks,
!*A F$d ##D$ G#Dt- Ci2 *DD)H #!
'ii
/espe$t Maine #AC v. M$1ee,
B** F$d #$ G#st Ci2 *D#DH *C
/odriguez de 6ui7as v. Shearson8Am. !2press) *n$.)
A(D US ACC G#()(H !
/omer v. !vans,
!#C US B*D G#((BH !, C, ), #!
Shalala v. *ll. Coun$il on 3ong ,erm Care) *n$.,
!*( US # G*DDDH !
Singer v. Hara,
!** P*d ##)C GWas- Ct A// #(CAH #B
Skinner v. +klahoma e2 rel. &illiamson,
$#B US !$! G#(A*H #(
Standhardt v. Superior Court o Ariz.,
CC P$d A!# GA2iE Ct A// *DD$H #B
Stean v. #err%,
A# F$d BCC GDC Ci2 #((AH #!
,homasson v. #err%,
)D F$d (#! GAt- Ci2 #((BH #A
9nited States /./. /et. Bd. v. Fritz,
AA( US #BB G#()DH *D
9nited States v. +.Brien,
$(# US $BC G#(B)H *#
9nited States v. &indsor,
#$$ S Ct *BC! G*D#$H passim
9niv. o ,e2. v. Camenis$h,
A!# US $(D G#()#H *B
5irginian /%. Co. v. S%s. Fed.n No. :;,
$DD US !#! G#($CH *!
&ashington v. Glu$ks(erg)
!*# US CD* G#((CH (, #D, ##, #A, #B
&illiams v. North Carolina,
$#C US *)C G#(A*H #(
'iii
&inter v. Natural /es. 'e. Coun$il) *n$,
!!! US C G*DD)H $, #!
&oodward v. 9nited States,
)C# F*d #DB) GF1d Ci2 #()(H #!
&right v. 3ane Cnt%. 'ist. Court,
BAC F*d (AD G(t- Ci2 #()#H A, )

Statutes and Constitutional Po!isions
*) USC #C$)C *#, **
TEX FAM CODE *DD#G9H *
TEX FAM CODE *AD#GaH *
TEX FAM CODE B*DA **
TEX FAM CODE B*DAG9H *
TEX FAM CODE B*DAG&H *, *B
TEX CONST a2t I, $* **
TEX CONST a2t I, $*GaH *, *B
US CONST a2t IV, # *#

Ot"e Aut"oities
A DICTIONAR, OF THE EN+LISH LAN+UA+E G#C!!H #*
JOEL PRENTISS 5ISHOP, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW OF MARRIA+E K
DIVORCE **! G#st 1d #)!*H #$
JOHN 5OUVIER, A LAW DICTIONAR, ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES #D! G#)B)H #$
CLAUDE LEVI%STRAUSS, THE VIEW FROM AFAR AD%A# G#()!H #*
+ RO5INA FUALE, A HISTOR, OF MARRIA+E S,STEMS * G#())H #*
NOAH WE5STER, AN AMERICAN DICTIONAR, OF THE EN+LISH LAN+UA+E
G#)*)H #*
i3
NOAH WE5STER, ET,MOLO+ICAL DICTIONAR, #$D G#st 1d #)B(H #*
JOSEPH EWORCESTER, A PRIMAR, DICTIONAR, OF THE EN+LISH
LAN+UA+E G#)C#H #*


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CLEOPATRA DE LEON, NICOLE DIMETMAN
VICTOR HOLMES, and MARK PHARISS,
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiffs, NO !"#$%&'%()*%OL+

'

RICK PERR,, in -is .ffi&ial &a/a&it0 as
+.'12n.2 .f t-1 Stat1 .f T13as4 +RE+ A55OTT,
in -is .ffi&ial &a/a&it0 as T13as Att.2n10 +1n12al4
+ERARD RICKHOFF, in -is .ffi&ial &a/a&it0 as
513a2 C.6nt0 Cl1274 and DAVID LAKE,, in -is
.ffi&ial &a/a&it0 as C.88issi.n12 .f t-1 T13as
D1/a2t81nt .f Stat1 H1alt- S12'i&1s,

D1f1ndants

STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs? /21li8ina20%in>6n&ti.n 8.ti.n as7s t-1 C.62t t. t18/.2a2il0
21;2it1 l.n<standin< T13as 8a22ia<1 la; in d1fian&1 .f 9indin< S6/2181 C.62t
/21&1d1nt Plaintiffs? 8.ti.n s-.6ld 91 d1ni1d 91&a6s1 Plaintiffs &ann.t 1sta9lis- a
li71li-..d .f s6&&1ss .n t-1 812its, and a /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n ;.6ld d2a8ati&all0
alt12 t-1 stat6s @6. and diss12'1 t-1 /69li& int121st 90 &21atin< n6812.6s l1<al and
/2a&ti&al /2.9l18s f.2 t-1 Stat1 and sa81%s13 &.6/l1s
It -as al;a0s 911n t-1 la; in T13as t-at 8a22ia<1 is d1fin1d as a 6ni.n .f
.n1 8an and .n1 ;.8an See) e.g., *n re Marriage o -.B. and H.B, $*B SW$d
B!A, BC! GT13 A//IDallas *D#D, /1t <2ant1dH G&itati.n .8itt1dH Gn.tin< t-at
*
:L6Mntil *DD$, n. stat1 21&.<niE1d sa81%s13 8a22ia<1s=H4 see also) e.g., Grigs(% v.
/ei(, #!$ SW ##*A, ##$D GT13 #(#$H G:Ma22ia<1 is n.t a &.nt2a&t, 96t a stat6s
&21at1d 90 86t6al &.ns1nt .f .n1 8an and .n1 ;.8an=H In #((C, T13as 91<an t.
&.dif0 its &.88.n la; .n t-is iss61, d1&la2in< t-at :LaM li&1ns1 8a0 n.t 91 iss61d f.2
t-1 8a22ia<1 .f /12s.ns .f t-1 sa81 s13= TEX FAM CODE *DD#G9H4 see also id
*AD#GaH Gli8itin< inf.28al 8a22ia<1s t. 6ni.ns .f :a 8an and ;.8an=H T-1
L1<islat621 f.ll.;1d 6/ in *DD$ 90 f.28all0 d118in< sa81%s13 8a22ia<1s '.id and
/2.-i9itin< 21&.<niti.n .2 1nf.2&181nt .f sa81%s13 8a22ia<1s &21at1d in .t-12
Stat1s TEX FAM CODE B*DAG9H, G&H In *DD!, aft12 a :stat1;id1 d1li912ati'1
/2.&1ss t-at 1na9l1d LT13as?sM &itiE1ns t. dis&6ss and ;1i<- a2<681nts f.2 and
a<ainst sa81%s13 8a22ia<1,= see 9nited States v. &indsor, #$$ S Ct *BC!, *B)(
G*D#$H, T13as '.t12s .'12;-1l8in<l0 a//2.'1d an a81nd81nt t. t-1 stat1
&.nstit6ti.n t. d1fin1 8a22ia<1 as :t-1 6ni.n .f .n1 8an and .n1 ;.8an= TEX
CONST a2t I, $*GaH As 13/lain1d 91l.;, t-at d1&isi.n is f6ll0 &.nsist1nt ;it-
-ist.20 and S6/2181 C.62t /21&1d1nt
Plaintiffs? att18/t t. &-an<1 t-1 stat6s @6. 90 >6di&iall0 21/1alin< ;1ll%
1sta9lis-1d T13as 8a22ia<1 la; s-.6ld 91 d1ni1d Plaintiffs -a'1 fail1d t. 8a71 t-1
n1&1ssa20 &l1a2 s-.;in< t-at t-10 a21 li71l0 t. /21'ail .n t-1 812its .f t-1i2
&.nstit6ti.nal &-all1n<1, and t-1 -a28 t-at t-1 Stat1 and sa81%s13 &.6/l1s ali71
;.6ld s6ff12 if t-1 C.62t 1n>.in1d stat1 la; <21atl0 .6t;1i<-s an0 in&.n'1ni1n&1
Plaintiffs ;.6ld 1nd621 d62in< t-1 /1nd1n&0 .f t-1i2 la;s6it

$
I# PLAINTIFFS MUST MA$E A %CLEAR SHO&IN'( THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO
THE %E)TRAORDINARY REMEDY( OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION#
A /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n is :an 13t2a.2dina20 2181d0 t-at 8a0 .nl0 91
a;a2d1d 6/.n a $lear showing t-at t-1 /laintiff is 1ntitl1d t. s6&- 21li1f= &inter v.
Natural /es. 'e. Coun$il) *n$, !!! US C, ** G*DD)H G18/-asis add1dH4 see also
Mazurek v. Armstrong, !*D US (B), (C* G#((CH G/12 &62ia8H Gan in>6n&ti.n is :an
13t2a.2dina20 and d2asti& 2181d0, .n1 t-at s-.6ld n.t 91 <2ant1d 6nl1ss t-1
8.'ant, 90 a $lear showing, &a22i1s t-1 962d1n .f /12s6asi.n=H G&itati.n and int12nal
@6.tati.n 8a27s .8itt1dH It is n.t 1n.6<- f.2 Plaintiffs t. s-.; a li71li-..d .f
s6&&1ss .n t-1 812its 90 a /21/.nd12an&1 .f t-1 1'id1n&1 Inst1ad, Plaintiffs 91a2
t-1 962d1n .f 8a7in< a :&l1a2 s-.;in<= .f a li71li-..d .f s6&&1ss .f t-1 812its, .n1
t-at is :21as.na9l0 f211 f2.8 d.69t,= 91f.21 t-is :13t2a.2dina20 and d2asti& 2181d0=
&an 91 1nt12tain1d See &inter, !!! US at **%*$4 Mazurek, !*D US at (C*
A&&.2din<l0, an0 6n&12taint0 s622.6ndin< t-1 la; 86st 21d.6nd t. t-1 91n1fit .f
t-1 Stat1, n.t t-1 /laintiffs, d62in< t-1 /21li8ina20%in>6n&ti.n sta<1 F.2 t-1
21as.ns 13/lain1d 91l.;, t-1 Plaintiffs? &.nt1nti.ns d. n.t &.81 &l.s1 t. a6t-.2iEin<
t-1 :13t2a.2dina20 and d2asti& 2181d0= .f a /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n
II# PLAINTIFFS HA*E NOT MADE A CLEAR SHO&IN' THAT IS REASONABLY FREE
FROM DOUBT THAT THEY ARE LI$ELY TO PRE*AIL ON THE MERITS#
A# Baker v. Nelson Is Bindin+ Su,e-e Cout Pe.edent T"at
Foe.loses Plainti//s Clai-s#
T-is /21li8ina20%in>6n&ti.n 8.ti.n s-.6ld 91 d1ni1d 91&a6s1 Plaintiffs?
&lai8s a21 f.21&l.s1d 90 t-1 S6/2181 C.62t?s &.nt2.llin< 26lin< in Baker v. Nelson,
AD( US )#D G#(C*H In Baker, t-1 S6/2181 C.62t 6nani8.6sl0 dis8iss1d, :f.2
A
;ant .f a s69stantial f1d12al @61sti.n,= an a//1al f2.8 t-1 Minn1s.ta S6/2181
C.62t /21s1ntin< t-1 sa81 @61sti.ns at iss61 -121" ;-1t-12 a Stat1?s 21f6sal t.
san&ti.n sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 'i.lat1d t-1 D61 P2.&1ss and E@6al P2.t1&ti.n Cla6s1s
.f t-1 F.62t11nt- A81nd81nt *d.4 see also Baker v. Nelson, N. C#%#D*C,
J62isdi&ti.nal Stat181nt at $ GO&t T128 #(C*H GE3 #H4 Baker v. Nelson, #(# NW*d
#)! GMinn #(C#H G1n 9an&H
T-1 Baker C.62t?s dis8issal ;as a d1&isi.n .n t-1 812its t-at is 9indin< .n
l.;12 &.62ts .n t-1 iss61s /21s1nt1d and n1&1ssa2il0 d1&id1d Mandel v. Bradle%,
A$* US #C$, #CB G#(CCH G/12 &62ia8H Baker?s /21&1d1ntial 'al61 :13t1nds 910.nd
t-1 fa&ts .f t-1 /a2ti&6la2 &as1 t. all si8ila2 &as1s,= &right v. 3ane Cnt%. 'ist.
Court, BAC F*d (AD, (A# G(t- Ci2 #()#H G/12 &62ia8H G&itin< M$Carth% v. #hila.
Civil Serv. Comm.n, A*A US BA!, BAB G#(CBH G/12 &62ia8HH4 see also Cervantes v.
Guerra, B!# F*d (CA, ()# G!t- Ci2 #()# Unit AH G&.n&l6din< t-at alt-.6<- a
S6/2181 C.62t?s 9indin< dis8issal :s/1&ifi&all0 in'.l'1d an 1l1&ti.n t. a s&-..l
9.a2d, LM ;1 s11 n. 21as.n t. li8it its a//li&ati.n t. an0 /a2ti&6la2 t0/1 .f 1l1&ti.n=H
M.21.'12, l.;12 &.62ts a21 9.6nd 90 t-1 d1&isi.n in Baker :6ntil s6&- ti81 as t-1
LS6/2181M C.62t inf.28s t-18 t-at t-10 a21 n.t,= Hi$ks v. Miranda, A** US $$*,
$AA%A! G#(C!H4 see also Hast% v. /ust !ng.g Co., C*B F*d #DB), #DCD G!t- Ci2 #()AH
G13/lainin< t-at S6/2181 C.62t dis8issals f.2 ;ant .f a s69stantial f1d12al
@61sti.n :a21 d1&isi.ns .n t-1 812its ;-i&- 9ind t-is &.62t=H4 Cervantes, B!# F*d at
()# G-11din< t-1 S6/2181 C.62t?s dis8issal f.2 ;ant .f s69stantial f1d12al @61sti.n
as :a d1&isi.n .n t-1 812its t-at 86st 91 <i'1n f6ll /21&1d1ntial 1ff1&t 90 l.;12
!
&.62ts=H 51&a6s1 Plaintiffs? &lai8s -121 a21 t-1 sa81 as t-.s1 21>1&t1d .n t-1
812its 90 t-1 S6/2181 C.62t in Baker, t-10 a21 f.21&l.s1d 90 t-at d1&isi.n
Plaintiffs a2<61 t-at Baker is distin<6is-a9l1 and is n. l.n<12 9indin<
/21&1d1nt 91&a6s1 it is in&.8/ati9l1 ;it- 3awren$e, /omer, &indsor, and t-1
C.62t?s s69s1@61nt 21&.<niti.n .f s13 as a @6asi%s6s/1&t &lass PI M.t at A!%AC
T-.s1 a2<681nts fail f.2 t-211 21as.ns
First, Plaintiffs s6<<1st Baker ;as .'1226l1d sil1ntl0 .2 90 i8/li&ati.n, see id
at AB, 96t t-1 S6/2181 C.62t :d.1s n.t n.28all0 .'12t62n, .2 LM d2a8ati&all0 li8it,
1a2li12 a6t-.2it0 su( silentio= Shalala v. *ll. Coun$il on 3ong ,erm Care) *n$., !*(
US #, #) G*DDDH M.21.'12, t-1 S6/2181 C.62t -as 21/1at1dl0 ad8.nis-1d l.;12
&.62ts t. a'.id &.n&l6din< t-at :.62 8.21 21&1nt &as1s -a'1, 90 i8/li&ati.n,
.'1226l1d an 1a2li12 /21&1d1nt= Agostini v. Felton, !*# US *D$, *$C%$) G#((CH
Rat-12, :LiMf a /21&1d1nt .f t-is C.62t -as di21&t a//li&ati.n in a &as1, 01t a//1a2s t.
21st .n 21as.ns 21>1&t1d in s.81 .t-12 lin1 .f d1&isi.ns, t-1 C.62t .f A//1als s-.6ld
f.ll.; t-1 &as1 ;-i&- di21&tl0 &.nt2.ls, l1a'in< t. t-is C.62t t-1 /212.<ati'1 .f
.'1226lin< its .;n d1&isi.ns= /odriguez de 6ui7as v. Shearson8Am. !2press) *n$.,
A(D US ACC, A)A G#()(H4 see also Agostini, !*# US *$C%$) Gsa81H
Se$ond, t-1 S6/2181 C.62t?s d1&isi.ns t-at Plaintiffs &it1 d. n.t :inf.28=
l.;12 &.62ts t-at t-10 a21 n. l.n<12 9.6nd 90 Baker See Hi$ks, A** US at $AA%A!
T. sta2t, 3awren$e ;1nt .6t .f its ;a0 t. &la2if0 t-at t-1 &as1 did :not in'.l'1
;-1t-12 t-1 <.'12n81nt 86st <i'1 f.28al 21&.<niti.n t. an0 21lati.ns-i/ t-at
-.8.s136al /12s.ns s117 t. 1nt12= 3awren$e v. ,e2as, !$( US !!), !C) G*DD$H
B
G18/-asis add1dH4 see also id at !)! GO?C.nn.2, J, &.n&622in< in >6d<81ntH G:T-at
t-is la; as a//li1d t. /2i'at1, &.ns1ns6al &.nd6&t is 6n&.nstit6ti.nal d.1s n.t
81an t-at .t-12 la;s distin<6is-in< 91t;11n -1t12.s136als and -.8.s136als ;.6ld
si8ila2l0 fail 6nd12 2ati.nal 9asis 21'i1; T13as &ann.t ass12t an0 l1<iti8at1 stat1
int121st -121, s6&- as /21s12'in< t-1 t2aditi.nal instit6ti.n .f 8a22ia<1=H
T-1 S6/2181 C.62t?s ./ini.n in &indsor als. .ff12s n. s6//.2t t. Plaintiffs?
a2<681nt &indsor &.8/.2ts ;it- Baker?s -.ldin< 90 st2i7in< d.;n a f1d12al
stat6t1 t-at int12f121d ;it- a Stat1?s /212.<ati'1 t. d1fin1 and 21<6lat1 8a22ia<1
See #$$ S Ct at *B(*%($ G&.n&l6din< t-at /.2ti.ns .f t-1 f1d12al D1f1ns1 .f
Ma22ia<1 A&t 6nd128in1d t-1 /62/.s1 and /2.t1&ti.ns .f N1; ,.27 8a22ia<1 la;H
Plaintiffs? &-a2a&t12iEati.n .f &indsor?s -.ldin< is ina&&62at1 T-1 C.62t did
n.t -.ld t-at sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 is /2.t1&t1d 90 t-1 F1d12al C.nstit6ti.n, as
Plaintiffs? &.nt1nd PI M.t at AB Rat-12, it -1ld t-at ederal la;, ani8at1d 90
ani86s, 8a0 n.t sin<l1 .6t stat1%san&ti.n1d 8a22ia<1s f.2 s1&.nd%&lass t21at81nt
;it-in t-at Stat1 #$$ S Ct at *B(A4 see also id at *B(C GR.912ts, CJ, diss1ntin<H
G.9s12'in< t-at t-1 :d.8inant t-181= .f t-1 8a>.2it0 ./ini.n :is t-at t-1 F1d12al
+.'12n81nt?s int26si.n int. an a21a N&1nt2al t. stat1 d.81sti& 21lati.ns la;
a//li&a9l1 t. its 21sid1nts and &itiE1ns? is s6ffi&i1ntl0 N6n6s6al? t. s1t .ff ala28
91lls=H G&itati.n .8itt1dH T-.6<- t-1 C.62t 21&.<niE1d t-at n.t-in< /21'1nts
&itiE1ns .f a Stat1 f2.8 &.ll1&ti'1l0 &-..sin< t. 21&.<niE1 and /128it sa81%s13
8a22ia<1 t-2.6<- t-1 d18.&2ati& /2.&1ss, it did s. in t-1 &.nt13t .f affi28in< t-1
t2aditi.nal a6t-.2it0 Stat1s -a'1 1312&is1d sin&1 t-1 f.6ndin< t. d1fin1 and
C
21<6lat1 8a22ia<1 *d at *B)(%(*4 see also id at *B(C GR.912ts, CJ, diss1ntin<H
Gn.tin< t-at it is :6nd1nia9l1= t-at t-1 8a>.2it0?s :>6d<81nt is 9as1d .n
f1d12alis8=H
Rat-12 t-an 21@6i2in< Stat1s t. 21&.<niE1 sa81%s13 8a22ia<1, t-1 C.62t
&.nd.n1d t-1 :stat1;id1 d1li912ati'1 /2.&1ss t-at 1na9l1d LN1; ,.27?sM &itiE1ns t.
dis&6ss and ;1i<- a2<681nts f.2 and a<ainst sa81%s13 8a22ia<1= id at *B)(4 see
also id at *B(* Gn.tin< t-at t-1 :d0na8i&s .f stat1 <.'12n81nt in t-1 f1d12al
s0st18 a21 t. all.; t-1 f.28ati.n .f &.ns1ns6s 21s/1&tin< t-1 ;a0 t-1 818912s .f a
dis&21t1 &.886nit0 t21at 1a&- .t-12 in t-1i2 dail0 &.nta&t and &.nstant int12a&ti.n
;it- 1a&- .t-12=H T-.s1 stat181nts /21s6//.s1 t-at Stat1s 8a0 ta71 diff121nt
/.siti.ns .n sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 91&a6s1 a :d1li912ati'1 /2.&1ss= and t-1 :f.28ati.n
.f &.ns1ns6s= is a6t-1nti& and 81anin<f6l .nl0 if &itiE1ns a21 f211 t. &-..s1 t.
21tain t2aditi.nal 8a22ia<1 C. id at *B(*%($ Gn.tin< N1; ,.27?s d1&isi.n t.
/128it sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 :21fl1&ts 9.t- t-1 &.886nit0?s &.nsid121d /12s/1&ti'1 .n
t-1 -ist.2i&al 2..ts .f t-1 instit6ti.n .f 8a22ia<1 and its 1'.l'in< 6nd12standin< .f
t-1 81anin< .f 1@6alit0=H Fa2 f2.8 &allin< Baker?s -.ldin< int. @61sti.n, &indsor
/2.'id1s s6//.2t f.2 t-1 21>1&ti.n .f Plaintiffs? F.62t11nt- A81nd81nt &lai8s
Plaintiffs? ass12ti.n t-at /omer is i221&.n&ila9l1 ;it- Baker is als. ;2.n<
/omer -ad n.t-in< t. d. ;it- 8a22ia<1 .2 t-1 Stat1?s 21<6lati.n t-121.f /omer v.
!vans, !#C US B*D G#((BH In &.nt2ast t. t-1 C.62t?s &.nsist1nt 21&.<niti.n .f
Stat1s? a6t-.2it0 t. d1fin1 and 21<6lat1 8a22ia<1, e.g.) &indsor, #$$ S Ct *B(*%($,
t-1 /omer C.62t add21ss1d an 1nti21l0 diff121nt iss61" stat1 la; dis&2i8inati.n :.f
)
an 6n6s6al &-a2a&t12,= t-at i8/.s1d :a 92.ad and 6ndiff121ntiat1d disa9ilit0 .n a
sin<l1 na81d <2.6/= 90 -ind12in< t-1i2 a9ilit0 t. /a2ti&i/at1 in t-1 /.liti&al /2.&1ss
/omer, !#C US at B$*%$$ G&itati.n and int12nal @6.tati.n 8a27s .8itt1dH
E@6all0 812itl1ss is Plaintiffs? a2<681nt t-at Baker d.1sn?t a//l0 91&a6s1 it
&a81 91f.21 t-1 C.62t?s 21&.<niti.n .f s13 as a @6asi%s6s/1&t &lass in Frontiero v.
/i$hardson, A## US BCC, B)* G#(C$H PI M.t at AB T-at &as1 -ad n.t-in< t. d.
;it- 8a22ia<1 .2 sa81%s13 &.6/l1s Frontiero, A## US at BC) G13/lainin< t-at t-1
&as1 &.n&12n1d t-1 2i<-t .f a f18al1 8ilita20 818912 t. &lai8 -12 8al1 s/.6s1 as a
d1/1ndantH
,hird, Plaintiffs a21 ;2.n< in t-1i2 ass12ti.n t-at insi<nifi&ant l1<al and
fa&t6al diff121n&1s f211 t-is C.62t f2.8 Baker?s a6t-.2it0 Plaintiffs 62<1 t-at
Baker is l1<all0 distin<6is-a9l1 G91&a6s1 t-is &as1 &.n&12ns s136al .2i1ntati.n
;-121as Baker &.n&12n1d s13 dis&2i8inati.nH and fa&t6all0 distin<6is-a9l1 G91&a6s1
Baker did n.t in'.l'1 a stat1 stat6t1 .2 &.nstit6ti.nal /2.'isi.n n.2 did it in'.l'1 a
sa81%s13 &.6/l1 8a22i1d in an.t-12 Stat1H PI M.t at AB 56t t-.s1 distin&ti.ns
a21 i221l1'ant 91&a6s1, 21<a2dl1ss .f an0 s18anti& .2 fa&t6al diff121n&1s, t-1 &lai8s
a21 s69stanti'1l0 /218is1d .n t-1 sa81 l1<al t-1.2i1s, and a21 t-121f.21 &.'121d
and <.'12n1d 90 Baker See M$Carth%, A*A US at BAB G13/lainin< t-at a /2i.2
dis8issal f.2 la&7 .f s69stantial f1d12al @61sti.n add21ss1d 8.21 t-an t-1 s/1&ifi&
la; at iss61 96t :t-is 7ind .f .2dinan&1=H4 &right, BAC F*d at (A#4 Cervantes, B!#
F*d at ()#
(
O O O
T-1 C.62t s-.6ld d1n0 Plaintiffs? /21li8ina20%in>6n&ti.n 8.ti.n 91&a6s1 t-1
S6/2181 C.62t?s 9indin< d1&isi.n in Baker di21&tl0 f.21&l.s1s Plaintiffs? &lai8s
B# Te0as Maia+e La1 Does Not *iolate Plainti//s Ri+"t to
Ma2#
T13as 8a22ia<1 la; d.1s n.t dis&2i8inat1 a<ainst Plaintiffs4 t-10 a21 f211 t.
8a220, >6st as an0 .t-12 T13as &itiE1n 8a0 Plaintiffs, -.;1'12, &.nt1nd t-at t-1
2i<-t t. 8a220 in&l6d1s a 2i<-t t. -a'1 a sa81%s13 21lati.ns-i/ 21&.<niE1d as a
8a22ia<1 PI M.t at #!%#C O2, /6t an.t-12 ;a0, Plaintiffs a2<61 t-at t-1 2i<-t t.
8a220 in&l6d1s t-1 2i<-t t. d1fin1 8a22ia<1 as t-10 s11 fit T-at is ;2.n<, and t-1i2
att18/t t. s-.1-.2n t-at all1<1d 2i<-t int. t-1 21&.<niE1d 2i<-t t. 8a220 is 6tt12l0
in&.nsist1nt ;it- S6/2181 C.62t /21&1d1nt and -ist.20 T-1 &.nstit6ti.nal
inn.'ati.n 21@61st1d 90 t-1 Plaintiffs?Ia 2i<-t n1'12 21&.<niE1d 90 t-1 S6/2181
C.62t .2 an0 f1d12al a//1llat1 &.62tIs-.6ld 91 d1ni1d
T-1 S6/2181 C.62t &la2ifi1d t-1 standa2d f.2 id1ntif0in< and d1finin<
f6nda81ntal 2i<-ts /2.t1&t1d 90 t-1 D61 P2.&1ss Cla6s1 in &ashington v.
Glu$ks(erg, 18/-asiEin< :t;. /2i8a20 f1at621s= .f t-is s69stanti'1 d61%/2.&1ss
anal0sis !*# US CD*, C*D G#((CH Fi2st, t-1 D61 P2.&1ss Cla6s1 /2.'id1s s/1&ial
/2.t1&ti.n .nl0 t. :t-.s1 f6nda81ntal 2i<-ts and li912ti1s ;-i&- a21 .9>1&ti'1l0,
d11/l0 2..t1d in t-is Nati.n?s -ist.20 and t2aditi.n, and i8/li&it in t-1 &.n&1/t .f
.2d121d li912t0, s6&- t-at n1it-12 li912t0 n.2 >6sti&1 ;.6ld 13ist if t-10 ;121
sa&2ifi&1d= *d at C*D%*# G&itati.ns and int12nal @6.tati.n 8a27s .8itt1dH :O62
Nati.n?s -ist.20, l1<al t2aditi.ns, and /2a&ti&1s t-6s /2.'id1 t-1 &26&ial <6id1/.sts
#D
f.2 21s/.nsi9l1 d1&isi.n 8a7in< t-at di21&t and 21st2ain L>6di&ialM 13/.siti.n .f t-1
D61 P2.&1ss Cla6s1= *d at C*# G&itati.n and int12nal @6.tati.n 8a27s .8itt1dH
S1&.nd, id1ntifi&ati.n .f f6nda81ntal 2i<-ts :21@6i21LsM a N&a21f6l d1s&2i/ti.n? .f
t-1 ass12t1d f6nda81ntal li912t0 int121st= *d G&itati.n .8itt1dH T-1s1 /2in&i/l1s
a21 int1nti.nall0 st2i&t, f.2 :13t1ndin< &.nstit6ti.nal /2.t1&ti.n t. an ass12t1d 2i<-t
.2 li912t0 int121st, t. a <21at 13t1nt, /la&1LsM t-1 8att12 .6tsid1 t-1 a21na .f
/69li& d19at1 and l1<islati'1 a&ti.n= *d at C*D C.62ts :86st t-121f.21 1312&is1
t-1 6t8.st &a21 ;-1n1'12 as71d t. 921a7 n1; <2.6nd in t-is fi1ld, l1st t-1
li912t0 /2.t1&t1d 90 t-1 D61 P2.&1ss Cla6s1 91 s69tl0 t2ansf.281d int. t-1 /.li&0
/21f121n&1s= .f >6d<1s *d G&itati.ns and int12nal @6.tati.n 8a27s .8itt1dH T-1
S6/2181 C.62t -as 21/1at1dl0 and f.2&1f6ll0 21it12at1d t-1s1 /2in&i/l1s !.g., 'ist.
Attorne% +i$e or ,hird -udi$ial 'ist. v. +s(orne, #*( S Ct *$D), *$** G*DD(H4
M$'onald v. Cit% o Chi$ago, #$D S Ct $D*D, $D$B G*D#DH As d18.nst2at1d 91l.;,
t-1 &lai8 t-at T13as?s t2aditi.nal d1finiti.n .f 8a22ia<1 'i.lat1s an0.n1?s
f6nda81ntal 2i<-t t. 8a220 26ns &.nt2a20 t. t-1s1 /2in&i/l1s at 1'120 t62n
T-1 /62/.2t1d 2i<-t ass12t1d 90 Plaintiffs t. 8a220 a /12s.n .f t-1 sa81 s13
/lainl0 fails t-1 t1st t-1 S6/2181 C.62t -as 8andat1d f.2 id1ntif0in< f6nda81ntal
2i<-ts Fa2 f2.8 91in< :.9>1&ti'1l0, d11/l0 2..t1d in t-is Nati.n?s -ist.20 and
t2aditi.n,= sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 ;as 6n7n.;n in t-1 la;s .f t-is Nati.n 91f.21 *DDA,
and 1'1n t.da0 sa81%s13 8a22ia<1s a21 l1<al in .nl0 s1'1nt11n Stat1s
#
and t-1
Dist2i&t .f C.l689ia T-6s, >6st as in +s(orne, :LtM-121 is n. l.n< -ist.20 .f s6&- a

#
Calif.2nia, C.nn1&ti&6t, D1la;a21, Ha;aii, I.;a, Illin.is, Main1, Ma20land, Massa&-6s1tts,
Minn1s.ta, N1; Ha8/s-i21, N1; J12s10, N1; M13i&., N1; ,.27, R-.d1 Island, V128.nt, and
Was-in<t.n
##
2i<-t, and LtM-1 8121 n.'1lt0 .f s6&- a &lai8 is 21as.n 1n.6<- t. d.69t t-at
s69stanti'1 d61 /2.&1ss s6stains it= #*( S Ct at *$** G&itati.n and int12nal
@6.tati.n 8a27s .8itt1dH F62t-12, -121, 86&- as in Glu$ks(erg, s11 !*# US at
C#C%#), inn.'ati.ns in t-1 f1; >62isdi&ti.ns t-at -a'1 &-.s1n t. 21d1fin1 8a22ia<1 t.
in&l6d1 sa81%s13 6ni.ns -a'1 /2.'.71d a 21affi28ati.n .f t-1 t2aditi.nal
6nd12standin< .f 8a22ia<1 in a fa2 <21at12 n68912 .f .t-12 >62isdi&ti.ns, and *(
Stat1s -a'1 1ns-2in1d in t-1i2 C.nstit6ti.ns t-1 l1<al d1finiti.n .f 8a22ia<1 as t-1
6ni.n .f a 8an and a ;.8an Plaintiffs? ass12ti.n .f a f6nda81ntal 2i<-t si8/l0
&ann.t 91 s@6a21d ;it- t-1 &as1 la; .2 t-1 -ist.2i&al 21&.2d
W-1n t-1 S6/2181 C.62t d1&id1d Baker in #(C*, it -ad l.n< 911n
1sta9lis-1d t-at t-1 2i<-t t. 8a220 is f6nda81ntal Ind11d, 3oving v. 5irginia, $))
US # G#(BCH, ;-i&- st26&7 d.;n Vi2<inia?s anti%8is&1<1nati.n la; as a 'i.lati.n .f
t-1 f6nda81ntal 2i<-t t. 8a220, -ad 911n d1&id1d >6st fi'1 01a2s 1a2li12 O9'i.6sl0,
if t-121 -ad 911n an0 812it at all in t-1 &lai8 t-at t-1 f6nda81ntal 2i<-t t. 8a220
21&.<niE1d in 3oving in&l6d1s t-1 2i<-t t. 8a220 a /12s.n .f t-1 sa81 s13, t-1n
s621l0 t-1 C.62t ;.6ld n.t -a'1 6nani8.6sl0 dis8iss1d t-1 a//1al in Baker f.2
;ant .f a s69stantial f1d12al @61sti.n E@6all0 .9'i.6s, n. s6&- 2i<-t t. sa81%s13
8a22ia<1 s.81-.; 91&a81 :d11/l0 2..t1d in t-is Nati.n?s -ist.20 and t2aditi.n=
sin&1 Baker ;as d1&id1d in #(C* Baker t-6s n1&1ssa2il0 f.21&l.s1s an0 -.ldin< t-at
sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 is /a2t .f t-1 f6nda81ntal 2i<-t t. 8a220
Hist.20, t.., 1sta9lis-1s t-at t-121 is n. t2aditi.n 6nd12/innin< sa81%s13
8a22ia<1 Until '120 21&1ntl0, :8a22ia<1 91t;11n a 8an and a ;.8an n. d.69t -ad
#*
911n t-.6<-t .f 90 8.st /1./l1 as 1ss1ntial t. t-1 '120 d1finiti.n .f t-at t128 and
t. its 2.l1 and f6n&ti.n t-2.6<-.6t t-1 -ist.20 .f &i'iliEati.n= &indsor, #$$ S Ct
at *B)( See also) e.g., CLAUDE LEVI%STRAUSS, THE VIEW FROM AFAR AD%A# G#()!H
G.9s12'in< t-at :t-1 fa8il0I9as1d .n a 6ni.n, 8.21 .2 l1ss d62a9l1, 96t s.&iall0
a//2.'1d, .f t;. indi'id6als .f .//.sit1 s131s ;-. 1sta9lis- a -.6s1-.ld and 91a2
and 2ais1 &-ild21nIa//1a2s t. 91 a /2a&ti&all0 6ni'12sal /-1n.81n.n, /21s1nt in
1'120 t0/1 .f s.&i1t0=H4 + RO5INA FUALE, A HISTOR, OF MARRIA+E S,STEMS * G#())H
G:Ma22ia<1, as t-1 s.&iall0 21&.<niE1d lin7in< .f a s/1&ifi& 8an t. a s/1&ifi& ;.8an
and -12 .ffs/2in<, &an 91 f.6nd in all s.&i1ti1s=H
Additi.nall0, t-1 .//.sit1%s13 &-a2a&t12 .f 8a22ia<1 -as al;a0s 911n
6nd12st..d t. 91 a &1nt2alIind11d d1finin<If1at621 .f t-is instit6ti.n, as
6nif.28l0 21fl1&t1d in di&ti.na2i1s t-2.6<-.6t t-1 a<1s Sa861l J.-ns.n, f.2
13a8/l1, d1fin1d 8a22ia<1 as t-1 :a&t .f 6nitin< a 8an and ;.8an f.2 lif1= A
DICTIONAR, OF THE EN+LISH LAN+UA+E G#C!!H S69s1@61nt di&ti.na2i1s -a'1
&.nsist1ntl0 d1fin1d 8a22ia<1 in t-1 sa81 ;a0, in&l6din< t-1 fi2st 1diti.n .f N.a-
W19st12?s, AN AMERICAN DICTIONAR, OF THE EN+LISH LAN+UA+E G#)*)H, and
/2.8in1nt di&ti.na2i1s f2.8 t-1 ti81 .f t-1 f2a8in< and 2atifi&ati.n .f t-1
F.62t11nt- A81nd81nt, see) e.g., NOAH WE5STER, ET,MOLO+ICAL DICTIONAR, #$D
G#st 1d #)B(H4 JOSEPH E WORCESTER, A PRIMAR, DICTIONAR, OF THE EN+LISH
LAN+UA+E G#)C#H A l1adin< l1<al di&ti.na20 &.nt18/.2an1.6s ;it- t-1 F.62t11nt-
A81nd81nt, f.2 13a8/l1, d1fin1d 8a22ia<1 as :LaM &.nt2a&t, 8ad1 in d61 f.28 .f
la;, 90 ;-i&- a 8an and ;.8an 21&i/2.&all0 1n<a<1 t. li'1 ;it- 1a&- .t-12 d62in<
#$
t-1i2 >.int li'1s, and t. dis&-a2<1 t.;a2ds 1a&- .t-12 t-1 d6ti1s i8/.s1d 90 la; .n
t-1 21lati.n .f -6s9and and ;if1= JOHN 5OUVIER, A LAW DICTIONAR, ADAPTED TO
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES #D! G#)B)H4 see also JOEL
PRENTISS 5ISHOP, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW OF MARRIA+E K DIVORCE **! G#st
1d #)!*H G:Ma22ia<1 91t;11n t;. /12s.ns .f .n1 s13 &.6ld -a'1 n. 'alidit0, as n.n1
.f t-1 1nds .f 8at2i8.n0 &.6ld 91 a&&.8/lis-1d t-12190 It -as al;a0s, t-121f.21,
911n d1181d 21@6isit1 t. t-1 1nti21 'alidit0 .f 1'120 8a22ia<1 t-at t-1 /a2ti1s
s-.6ld 91 .f diff121nt s13=H In t-1 fa&1 .f t-is 1sta9lis-1d &as1 la; and -ist.20,
Plaintiffs -a'1 8ad1 no s-.;in< t-at sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 is an0t-in< 8.21 t-an a
21&1nt in'1nti.n C.ns1@61ntl0, t-10 &ann.t s-.; t-at sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 is a
f6nda81ntal 2i<-t
As a &.2.lla20 t. t-1i2 f6nda81ntal%2i<-t a2<681nt, Plaintiffs als. ass12t
t-at t-1 Stat1 8a0 n.t :d1n0 1a&- &itiE1n t-1 Nf211d.8 .f /12s.nal &-.i&1? in
d1&idin< ;-.8 t. 8a220, n.2 8a0 it d1n0 1a&- &itiE1n?s d1&isi.n t-1 :?sa81 stat6s
and di<nit0?= PI M.t at #B G@6.tin< &indsor, #$$ S Ct at *B)(H T-at a2<681nt
t;ists &indsor and &.nf6s1s t-1 2i<-t t. 8a220 ;it- t-1 d1finiti.n .f 8a22ia<1 As
al21ad0 13/lain1d, &indsor 21affi281d t-1 Stat1s? a6t-.2it0 t. d1fin1 and 21<6lat1
8a22ia<1 #$$ S Ct at *B(*%($ Fa2 f2.8 8andatin< stat1 8a22ia<1 /.li&0, as
Plaintiffs i8/l0, t-1 C.62t disa//2.'1d .f f1d12al intereren$e ;it- stat1 8a22ia<1
la; See id G&2iti&iEin< t-1 f1d12al la;?s :6n6s6al d1'iati.n f2.8 t-1 6s6al
t2aditi.n .f 21&.<niEin< and a&&1/tin< stat1 d1finiti.ns .f 8a22ia<1=H
#A
M.21.'12, as 13/lain1d a9.'1, t-1 2i<-t t. 8a220 -as n1'12 in&l6d1d t-1 2i<-t
t. sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 A&&.2din< t. Plaintiffs? a2<681nt, t-1 f6nda81ntal 8a22ia<1
2i<-t 81ans an0.n1 &an 8a220 an0.n1, ;it-.6t 21st2i&ti.n 56t Plaintiffs /.int t.
n. s6&- 2i<-t in t-1 -ist.20 .2 t2aditi.ns .f t-is &.6nt20 T-1 2i<-t t-at d.1s 13istI
t. 8a220 a /12s.n .f t-1 .//.sit1 s13Iis 1@6all0 a'aila9l1 t. all /1./l1 Plaintiffs?
6ns69stantiat1d att18/t t. s69tl0 21&ast t-at l.n<standin< 2i<-t as a 2i<-t t.
8a220 an0 /12s.n .f .n1?s &-..sin< fli1s in t-1 fa&1 .f Glu$ks(urg?s ad8.niti.n t-at
t-1 ass12t1d 2i<-t 21@6i21s a :&a21f6l d1s&2i/ti.n= !*# US at C** F.2 all t-1s1
21as.ns, t-1 C.62t s-.6ld 21>1&t Plaintiffs? f6nda81ntal%2i<-t a2<681nt and a'.id
;adin< int. 6nt1st1d &.nstit6ti.nal ;at12s at t-is sta<1 .f t-1 /2.&11din<
C# Te0as Maia+e La1 Is Not Su34e.t to Hei+"tened E5ual6
Pote.tion S.utin2#
T-1 S6/2181 C.62t and Fift- Ci2&6it -a'1 21/1at1dl0 21f6s1d t. t21at s136al
.2i1ntati.n as a s6s/1&t .2 @6asi%s6s/1&t &lassifi&ati.n N1'12t-1l1ss, Plaintiffs as7
t-is C.62tIin a /21li8ina20%in>6n&ti.n 8.ti.n n. l1ssIt. 921a7 f2.8 t-1 S6/2181
C.62t and t-1 Fift- Ci2&6it and s69>1&t T13as 8a22ia<1 la; t. -1i<-t1n1d s&26tin0
.n t-1 <2.6nd t-at it 962d1ns <a0 81n and l1s9ians as a s6s/1&t .2 @6asi%s6s/1&t
&lass PI M.t at #) T-1 C.62t s-.6ld 21>1&t t-at a//2.a&-
:N1it-12 t-1 S6/2181 C.62t n.2 Lt-1 Fift- Ci2&6itM -as 21&.<niE1d s136al
.2i1ntati.n as a s6s/1&t &lassifi&ati.n L.2 /2.t1&t1d <2.6/M= -ohnson v. -ohnson,
$)! F$d !D$, !$* G!t- Ci2 *DDAH4 -ames v. Hertzog, A#! F1d A//3 !$D, !$* G!t-
Ci2 *D##H G/12 &62ia8H G13/lainin< t-at t-1 :S6/2181 C.62t -as n.t 21&.<niE1d
s136al .2i1ntati.n as a s6s/1&t &lass=H N.2 -as an0 .t-12 f1d12al a//1llat1 &.62t
#!
t-at -as add21ss1d t-is iss61 See) e.g., Cook v. Gates, !*) F$d A*, B# G#st Ci2
*DD)H4 ,homasson v. #err%, )D F$d (#!, (*) GAt- Ci2 #((BH G1n 9an&H4 !"ual.
Found. o Greater Cin$innati v. Cit% o Cin$innati, #*) F$d *)(, *(A GBt- Ci2 #((CH4
Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, ))# F*d A!A, ABA GCt- Ci2 #()(H4 Citizens or !"ual #rot. v.
Bruning, A!! F$d )!(, )BB G)t- Ci2 *DDBH4 #err% v. Brown, BC# F$d #D!*, #D)*
G(t- Ci2 *D#*H4 High ,e$h Ga%s v. 'e. *ndus. Se$. Clearan$e +i$e, )(! F*d !B$,
!CA G(t- Ci2 #((DH4 #ri$e-Cornelison v. Brooks, !*A F$d ##D$, ###A n( G#Dt- Ci2
*DD)H4 3oton v. Se$.% o the 'ep.t o Children 4 Famil% Servs., $!) F$d )DA, )#)
G##t- Ci2 *DDAH4 Stean v. #err%, A# F$d BCC, B)! n$ GDC Ci2 #((AH G1n 9an&H4
&oodward v. 9nited States, )C# F*d #DB), #DCB GF1d Ci2 #()(H As t-1s1 &as1s
21&.<niE1, t-1 S6/2181 C.62t -as n1'12 -1ld t-at <a0 81n and l1s9ians a21 a
/2.t1&t1d &lass and -as al;a0s a//li1d 2ati.nal%9asis 21'i1; 13/21ssl0 .2 90
i8/li&ati.n in its 21'i1; .f la;s t-at 962d1n -.8.s136als See) e.g., &indsor, #$$
S Ct at *B(B4 3awren$e, !$( US at !C)4 /omer, !#C US at B$$
In t-1 fa&1 .f t-is 6nani8.6s /21&1d1nt, Plaintiffs d1'.t1 a si<nifi&ant s-a21
.f t-1i2 8.ti.n t. a2<6in< t-at <a0 81n and l1s9ians should 91 t21at1d as a s6s/1&t
.2 @6asi%s6s/1&t &lass PI M.t at #)%$D T-.s1 a2<681nts a21 i221l1'ant
Plaintiffs a21 as7in< t-is C.62t t. /21'1nt stat1 .ffi&ials f2.8 1nf.2&in< d6l0
1na&t1d stat1 la; .n a /21li8ina20 9asis In .2d12 t. @6alif0 f.2 s6&- a :d2asti&=
and :13t2a.2dina20= 2181d0, Plaintiffs 86st 8a71 a :&l1a2 s-.;in<= t-at t-10 a21
1ntitl1d t. s6&- 21li1f &inter, !!! US at ** Plaintiffs? /.li&0 a2<681nts t-at
&.nt2adi&t 6nani8.6s, &.nt2.llin< f1d12al /21&1d1nt d. n.t &l1a2 t-at -i<- 9a2 T-1
#B
C.62t s-.6ld f.ll.; t-1 -.ldin<s .f t-1 Fift- Ci2&6it and t-1 S6/2181 C.62t and
a//l0 2ati.nal%9asis 21'i1; t. T13as 8a22ia<1 la;
D# Te0as Maia+e La1 Satis/ies Rational6Basis Re!ie1#
Sin&1 T13as 8a22ia<1 la; n1it-12 inf2in<1s a f6nda81ntal 2i<-t n.2
dis&2i8inat1s a<ainst a s6s/1&t &lass, it is s69>1&t t. 2ati.nal%9asis 21'i1; See
Glu$ks(erg, !*# US at C*)4 Heller v. 'oe, !D( US $#*, $#(%*D G#(($H4 3eCler$ v.
&e((, A#( F$d AD!, A*# G!t- Ci2 *DD!H Und12 t-at standa2d, ever% a//1llat1
d1&isi.n t. add21ss t-1 f1d12al &.nstit6ti.nalit0 .f stat1 la;s li8itin< 8a22ia<1 t.
.//.sit1%s13 &.6/l1s -as 6/-1ld t-1 la;s as 2ati.nall0 21lat1d t. a l1<iti8at1 stat1
int121st, in&l6din< t-1 Unit1d Stat1s C.62t .f A//1als f.2 t-1 Ei<-t- Ci2&6it, t;.
Stat1 &.62ts .f final 21s.2t, and f.62 int1281diat1 Stat1 &.62ts, in&l6din< .n1 in
T13as See *n re Marriage o -.B. and H.B., $*B SW$d at BCC4 Citizens or !"ual
#rot. v. Bruning, A!! F$d )!(, )C# G)t- Ci2 *DDBH4 Standhardt v. Superior Court o
Ariz., CC P$d A!#, A!$ GA2iE Ct A// *DD$H4 'ean v. 'istri$t o Colum(ia, B!$ A*d
$DC, $D) GDC #((!H G/12 &62ia8H4 Singer v. Hara, !** P*d ##)C, ##(C GWas- Ct
A// #(CAH4 -ones v. Hallahan, !D# SW*d !)), !(D GK0 Ct A// #(C$H4 Baker, #(#
NW*d at #)C
Rati.nalit0 21'i1; is a :/a2adi<8 .f >6di&ial 21st2aint= 6nd12 ;-i&- &.62ts
-a'1 n. a6t-.2it0 :t. >6d<1 t-1 ;isd.8, fai2n1ss, .2 l.<i& .f l1<islati'1 &-.i&1s=
FCC v. Bea$h Comm$.ns) *n$., !D) US $DC, $#$%#A G#(($H Rat-12, T13as la; 86st
91 :a&&.2d1d a st2.n< /21s68/ti.n .f 'alidit0,= and it :&ann.t 26n af.6l .f t-1
LF.62t11nt- A81nd81ntM if t-121 is a 2ati.nal 21lati.ns-i/ 91t;11n LitsM dis/a2it0
.f t21at81nt= .f sa81%s13 and .//.sit1%s13 &.6/l1s :and s.81 l1<iti8at1
#C
<.'12n81ntal /62/.s1= Heller, !D( US at $#(%*D Ind11d, 91&a6s1 :t-1
instit6ti.n .f 8a22ia<1 -as al;a0s 911n, in .62 f1d12al s0st18, t-1 /21d.8inant
&.n&12n .f stat1 <.'12n81nt 2ati.nal%9asis 21'i1; 86st 91 /a2ti&6la2l0
d1f121ntial= Bruning, A!! F$d at )BC Und12 t-is -i<-l0 d1f121ntial standa2d,
Plaintiffs -a'1 fail1d t. 811t t-1i2 962d1n
7# Plainti//s /ailed to %.leal2 s"o1( t"at t"ee is no
.on.ei!a3le ational 3asis /o Te0as -aia+e la1#
As an initial 8att12, Plaintiffs 8isstat1 and 8isa//l0 t-1 2ati.nal%9asis
standa2d L..7in< t. a diff121nt &as1 .n a diff121nt iss61 in a diff121nt &.62t,
Plaintiffs a2<61 t-at T13as 8a22ia<1 la; &an 91 s6stain1d .nl0 if t-1 t;. /a2ti&6la2
>6stifi&ati.ns f.2 T13as 8a22ia<1 la; ad'an&1d in t-at .t-12 &as1 a21 2ati.nal PI
M.t at $* 56t, 21<a2dl1ss .f t-1 812it and d1f1nsi9ilit0 .f t-1 >6stifi&ati.ns t-at
Plaintiffs atta&7, t-at is d1finiti'1l0 not t-1 standa2d
Und12 2ati.nal%9asis 21'i1;, Plaintiffs 86st :n1<ati'1 ever% $on$eiva(le (asis
;-i&- 8i<-t s6//.2t Lt-1 la;M= Bea$h Comm$.ns, !D) US at $#! Gint12nal
@6.tati.n 8a27s .8itt1dH G18/-asis add1dH T13as :-as n. .9li<ati.n t. /2.d6&1
1'id1n&1 t. s6stain t-1 2ati.nalit0 .f a stat6t.20 &lassifi&ati.n= Heller, !D( US at
$*D4 Bea$h Comm$.ns, !D) US at $#! G-.ldin< t-at :a l1<islati'1 &-.i&1 is n.t
s69>1&t t. &.62t2..8 fa&tfindin<=H M.21.'12, :it is 1nti21l0 i221l1'ant f.2
&.nstit6ti.nal /62/.s1s ;-1t-12 t-1 &.n&1i'1d 21as.n f.2 t-1 &-all1n<1d distin&ti.n
a&t6all0 8.ti'at1d t-1 l1<islat621= Bea$h Comm$.ns, !D) US at $#! T-6s,
Plaintiffs &ann.t d1f1at t-1 2ati.nalit0 .f T13as 8a22ia<1 la; 90 si8/l0 atta&7in< a
f1; all1<1d 9as1s f.2 t-1 la; And 91&a6s1 Plaintiffs d. n.t 1'1n all1<1 t-at t-121
#)
is n. &.n&1i'a9l1 >6stifi&ati.n f.2 t-1 la;, 86&- l1ss att18/t t. satisf0 t-1
1sta9lis-1d 2ati.nal%9asis standa2d, t-10 &ann.t 811t t-1i2 962d1n .f s-.;in< t-at
t-10 ;ill li71l0 /21'ail .n t-1 812its and a21 t-121f.21 n.t 1ntitl1d t. /21li8ina20
in>6n&ti'1 21li1f
8# Te0as -aia+e la1 ad!an.es t"e States !ital inteest in
es,onsi3le ,o.eation and ."ildeain+#
S1ttin< asid1 Plaintiffs? &.8/l1t1 fail621 t. 811t t-1i2 962d1n, T13as
8a22ia<1 la; n1'12t-1l1ss satisfi1s t-1 -i<-l0 d1f121ntial 2ati.nal%9asis standa2d
90 /2.8.tin< t-1 Stat1?s int121st in 21s/.nsi9l1 /2.&21ati.n and &-ild21a2in< A
f6nda81ntal /62/.s1 .f 8a22ia<1 -as al;a0s 911n t. f62t-12 s.&i1t0?s int121st in
in&21asin< t-1 li71li-..d t-at &-ild21n ;ill 91 9.2n t. and 2ais1d 90 t-1 &.6/l1s ;-.
92.6<-t t-18 int. t-1 ;.2ld in sta9l1 and 1nd62in< fa8il0 6nits 51&a6s1 s136al
21lati.ns-i/s 91t;11n 81n and ;.81n &an /2.d6&1 &-ild21n, t-.s1 21lati.ns-i/s
-a'1 t-1 /.t1ntial t. f62t-12I.2 -a28It-is int121st in a ;a0, and t. an 13t1nt,
t-at .t-12 t0/1s .f 21lati.ns-i/s d. n.t
50 21tainin< t-1 t2aditi.nal d1finiti.n .f 8a22ia<1, T13as /21s12'1s t-1
a9idin< lin7 91t;11n t-at instit6ti.n and t-is t2aditi.nal /62/.s1, a /62/.s1 t-at
still s12'1s 'ital int121sts t-at a21 6ni@61l0 i8/li&at1d 90 8al1%f18al1
21lati.ns-i/s :LIMt s118s 910.nd dis/6t1 t-at t-1 stat1 -as a &.8/1llin< int121st in
1n&.62a<in< and f.st12in< /2.&21ati.n .f t-1 2a&1 and /2.'idin< stat6s and sta9ilit0
t. t-1 1n'i2.n81nt in ;-i&- &-ild21n a21 2ais1d= Adams v. Howerton, A)B F S6//
###(, ##*A GCD Cal #()DH, a.d on other grounds, BC$ F*d #D$B G(t- Ci2 #()*H
Ind11d, :LiMt is -a2d t. &.n&1i'1 an int121st 8.21 l1<iti8at1 and 8.21 /a2a8.6nt f.2
#(
t-1 stat1 t-an /2.8.tin< an ./ti8al s.&ial st26&t621 f.2 1d6&atin<, s.&ialiEin<, and
/21/a2in< its f6t621 &itiE1ns t. 91&.81 /2.d6&ti'1 /a2ti&i/ants in &i'il s.&i1t0=
3oton, $!) F$d at )#( T-1 S6/2181 C.62t -as &.nsist1ntl0 &.nfi281d t-is
s.&i1tal int121st, -.ldin< 21/1at1dl0 t-at 8a22ia<1 is :f6nda81ntal t. .62 '120
13ist1n&1 and s62'i'al= !.g.) 3oving, $)) US at #*4 Skinner v. +klahoma e2 rel.
&illiamson, $#B US !$!, !A# G#(A*H G:L8Ma22ia<1 and /2.&21ati.n a21 f6nda81ntal
t. t-1 '120 13ist1n&1 and s62'i'al .f t-1 2a&1=H4 Ma%nard v. Hill, #*! US #(D, *D!
G#)))H G21&.<niEin< t-at 8a22ia<1 :&21atL1sM t-1 8.st i8/.2tant 21lati.n in lif1= and
:-aLsM 8.21 t. d. ;it- t-1 8.2als and &i'iliEati.n .f a /1./l1 t-an an0 .t-12
instit6ti.n=H
Ma22ia<1 is a 6ni@61l0 i8/.2tant instit6ti.n and -.lds a s/1&ial, 1'1n
f6nda81ntal, /la&1 in s.&i1t0 Ma22ia<1, as t2aditi.nall0 6nd12st..d, is :t-1
f.6ndati.n .f t-1 fa8il0 and .f s.&i1t0, ;it-.6t ;-i&- t-121 ;.6ld 91 n1it-12
&i'iliEati.n n.2 /2.<21ss= Ma%nard, #*! US at *##4 see also &illiams v. North
Carolina, $#C US *)C, $D$ G#(A*H G:t-1 8a22ia<1 21lati.n LisM an instit6ti.n 8.21
9asi& in .62 &i'iliEati.n t-an an0 .t-12=H T13as?s /2.t1&ti.n .f t-is &2iti&al
instit6ti.n and 21s12'ati.n .f 8a22ia<1 t. .//.sit1%s13 &.6/l1s is t-121f.21
2ati.nall0 21lat1d t. a l1<iti8at1 stat1 int121st M.21.'12, :L<Mi'1n t-1 &2iti&al
i8/.2tan&1 .f &i'il 8a22ia<1 as an .2<aniEin< and sta9iliEin< instit6ti.n .f s.&i1t0,
it is 18in1ntl0 2ati.nal f.2 Lt-1 /1./l1 .f T13asM t. /.st/.n1 8a7in< f6nda81ntal
&-an<1s t. it 6ntil s6&- ti81 as t-121 is 6nani8.6s s&i1ntifi& 1'id1n&1, .2 /./6la2
*D
&.ns1ns6s, .2 9.t-, t-at s6&- &-an<1s &an saf1l0 91 8ad1= Goodridge v. 'ep.t o
#u(. Health, C() NE*d (A#, #DD$ GMass *DD$H GC.2d0, J, diss1ntin<H
9# Plainti//s assetion o/ ani-us is 3aseless#
As a last 21s.2t, Plaintiffs? 2ais1 a fli8s0 &lai8 t-at t-1 Stat1?s 8a22ia<1 la;
86st -a'1 911n 8.ti'at1d 90 i22ati.nal ani86s 91&a6s1 t-1 .t-12 9as1s f.2 t-1 la;
t-at t-10 &.nsid121d :failL1dM t. /ass 86st12= PI M.t at AD Plaintiffs? .nl0
<2.6nds f.2 t-1 6<l0 a&&6sati.n t-at the /62/.s1 f.2 t-1 T13as 8a22ia<1 la; ;as t.
-a28 <a0 81n and l1s9ians a21 G#H a sni//1t .f l1<islati'1 -ist.20 13/21ssin< t-1
91n1fits .f t2aditi.nal 8a22ia<1, and G*H a fl..2 stat181nt 90 a sin<l1, 6nid1ntifi1d
/12s.n t-at /128ittin< sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 :&.6ld l1ad t. 21&.<niti.n .f 9i<a80,
'.l6nta20 in&1st, /1d./-ilia, and <2.6/ 8a22ia<1= *d Plaintiffs .ff12 n.t-in< t.
s-.; t-at t-is &.881nta20 21fl1&t1d t-1 8.ti'ati.ns .f t-1 L1<islat621 as a ;-.l1,
86&- l1ss t-1 1nti21 T13as 1l1&t.2at1, as .//.s1d t. si8/l0 t-1 indi'id6al ./ini.ns
.f t-1 s/1a712s T-1i2 &lai8 .f i8/2./12 /62/.s1 fails .n t-at 9asis
R1<a2dl1ss, n1it-12 .f t-1s1 stat181nts indi&at1s ani86s T. t-1 &.nt2a20,
t-1s1 &.881nts si8/l0 21fl1&t t-1 :d1li912ati'1 /2.&1ss t-at 1na9l1d LT13asM
&itiE1ns t. dis&6ss and ;1i<- a2<681nts f.2 and a<ainst sa81%s13 8a22ia<1=
&indsor, #$$ S Ct at *B)( A2<681nts f.2 .2 a<ainst /a2ti&6la2 l1<islati.n d. n.t
1sta9lis- -.stilit0 t.;a2d indi'id6als t-at 8a0 91 aff1&t1d 90 t-1 la; If t-at ;121
t-1 &as1, t-1n n1a2l0 1'120 la; ;.6ld 91 taint1d ;it- ani86s
In an0 1'1nt, Plaintiffs? ass12ti.ns .f ani86s a21 .f n. &.ns1@61n&1 51&a6s1
:t-121 a21 /la6si9l1 21as.ns= f.2 T13as t. 21tain t-1 t2aditi.nal d1finiti.n .f
8a22ia<1, >6di&ial :in@6i20 is at an 1nd= 9nited States /./. /et. Bd. v. Fritz, AA(
*#
US #BB, #C( G#()DH E'1n if T13as 8a22ia<1 la; 8i<-t -a'1 911n 1na&t1d
/62s6ant t. an i8/128issi9l1 8.ti'1, Plaintiffs? :a2<681nt 86st fail 91&a6s1 NLitM is
a fa8ilia2 /2a&ti&1 .f &.nstit6ti.nal la; t-at t-is &.62t ;ill n.t st2i71 d.;n an
.t-12;is1 &.nstit6ti.nal stat6t1 .n t-1 9asis .f an all1<1d illi&it l1<islati'1 8.ti'1?=
Mi$hael M. v. Superior Court, A!D US ABA, AC* nC G#()#H G@6.tin< 9nited States v.
+.Brien, $(# US $BC, $)$ G#(B)HH T-6s, <i'1n t-at t-121 is a /la6si9l1,
/128issi9l1, l1<iti8at1 /62/.s1 f.2 t-1 la;, it 86st stand, 21<a2dl1ss ;-1t-12
Plaintiffs &.6ld s-.; .t-12, i8/128issi9l1 8.ti'1s f.2 its /assa<1
E# Te0ass Re/usal To Re.o+ni:e Sa-e6Se0 Maia+es Fo- Ot"e
States Does Not *iolate Plainti//s Due6Po.ess O E5ual6
Pote.tion Ri+"ts#
Plaintiffs D1 L1.n and Di81t8an ;2.n<l0 ass12t t-at t-1 F.62t11nt-
A81nd81nt 21@6i21s T13as t. 21&.<niE1 and <i'1 1ff1&t t. t-1i2 .6t%.f%stat1 sa81%
s13 8a22ia<1s PI M.t at A# T-is &.nt1nti.n is littl1 8.21 t-an a 21-as- .f t-1i2
d61%/2.&1ss and 1@6al%/2.t1&ti.n &lai8s, al21ad0 add21ss1d, 96t ;it- 1'1n l1ss
812it
*

T. 91<in ;it-, Plaintiffs? a2<681nts a21 f.21&l.s1d 90 t-1 f1d12al D1f1ns1 .f
Ma22ia<1 A&t GDOMAH, *) USC #C$)C, a la; t-at Plaintiffs d.n?t 1'1n
a&7n.;l1d<1 T-1 F6ll Fait- and C21dit Cla6s1 .f t-1 Unit1d Stat1s C.nstit6ti.n
18/.;12s C.n<21ss t. :/21s&2i91 t-1 Eff1&t= .f a Stat1?s a&ts and 21&.2ds in
an.t-12 Stat1 US CONST a2t IV, # P62s6ant t. t-at a6t-.2it0, DOMA d1&la21s

*
T. t-1 13t1nt Plaintiffs a2<61 t-at 1nf.2&181nt .f T13as 8a22ia<1 la; 'i.lat1s stat1 la;, PI M.t at
A#, A* nC, t-at &lai8 is 9a221d 90 t-1 Stat1?s s.'121i<n i886nit0 It -as 911n fi28l0 1sta9lis-1d f.2
d1&ad1s t-at :a f1d12al s6it a<ainst stat1 .ffi&ials .n t-1 9asis .f stat1 la; &.nt2a'1n1s t-1 El1'1nt-
A81nd81nt= ;-1n t-1 Stat1 is t-1 21al /a2t0 in int121st #ennhurst State S$h. 4 Hosp. v.
Halderman, AB! US )(, ##C G#()AH :T-is &.nstit6ti.nal 9a2 a//li1s t. Ls6//l181ntal >62isdi&ti.nM
&lai8s as ;1ll= *d at #*D
**
t-at :LnM. Stat1 s-all 91 21@6i21d t. <i'1 1ff1&t t. an0 /69li& a&t, 21&.2d, .2
>6di&ial /2.&11din< .f an0 .t-12 Stat1 21s/1&tin< a 21lati.ns-i/ 91t;11n /12s.ns
.f t-1 sa81 s13 t-at is t21at1d as a 8a22ia<1 6nd12 t-1 la;s .f s6&- .t-12 Stat1
.2 a 2i<-t .2 &lai8 a2isin< f2.8 s6&- 21lati.ns-i/= *) USC #C$)C DOMA t-6s
&la2ifi1s t-at t-1 C.nstit6ti.n d.1s n.t 21@6i21 T13as t. 21&.<niE1 .2 <i'1 1ff1&t t.
an0 .6t%.f%stat1 sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 C.nsist1nt ;it- DOMA, T13as la; li8its
21&.<niti.n .f .6t%.f%stat1 8a22ia<1s t. .//.sit1%s13 6ni.ns See TEX CONST a2t I,
$*4 TEX FAM CODE B*DA Plaintiffs d. n.t 81nti.n DOMA, 86&- l1ss &-all1n<1
its &.nstit6ti.nalit0, see Pls? C.8/laint4 PI M.t at A(, and t-121f.21 t-10 &ann.t
/.ssi9l0 /21'ail .n t-1i2 &lai8 t-at T13as la;, ;-i&- si8/l0 f.ll.;s DOMA, is
6n&.nstit6ti.nal f.2 n.t 21&.<niEin< .6t%.f%stat1 sa81%s13 8a22ia<1s
S1ttin< asid1 t-1 &.n&l6si'1 1ff1&t .f DOMA .n Plaintiffs? .6t%.f%stat1
8a22ia<1 &lai8s, Plaintiffs? .t-12 a2<681nts s-.6ld 91 dis8iss1d .6t .f -and T.
91<in ;it-, Plaintiffs? 1@6al%/2.t1&ti.n a2<681nt is 812itl1ss Plaintiffs
a&7n.;l1d<1, as t-10 86st, t-at t-1 Stat1 8a0 21f6s1 t. 21&.<niE1 .2 <i'1 1ff1&t t.
.6t%.f%stat1 8a22ia<1s t-at 26n af.6l .f T13as?s &.difi1d /69li& /.li&0 PI M.t at AA4
see Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp, !** US ***, *$$ G#(()H G13/lainin< t-at :LaM &.62t
8a0 91 <6id1d 90 t-1 f.268 Stat1Ps N/69li& /.li&0? in d1t128inin< t-1 la; a//li&a9l1
t. a &.nt2.'12s0=H4 3oughran v. 3oughran, *(* US *#B, **C%*) G#($AH4 see also
1.'.F. v. /e2, )C) SW*d !)(, !(! GT13 #((AH G:T13as ;ill 13t1nd &.8it0 t. t-1 la;
.f a &../12ati'1 >62isdi&ti.n s. l.n< as t-at la; d.1s n.t 'i.lat1 T13as /69li&
/.li&0=H T-1i2 .nl0 att18/t t. .'12&.81 t-is a6t-.2it0 is a 9ald a&&6sati.n t-at
*$
t-1 Stat1?s /.li&0 :is n.t-in< 8.21 t-an a dis&2i8inat.20 ani86s t-at ta2<1ts an
6n/./6la2 8in.2it0= PI M.t at A* Plaintiffs /2.'id1 n. s6//.2t f.2 t-at &lai8
As al21ad0 13/lain1d, Plaintiffs -a'1 n.t 1sta9lis-1d ani86s as t-1 8.ti'1 f.2
T13as?s 8a22ia<1 la;s and, 21<a2dl1ss, t-.s1 la;s a21 &.nstit6ti.nal 6nd12 t-1
2ati.nal%9asis t1st Supra, IID M.21.'12, Plaintiffs? ass12ti.n t-at t-1 State fail1d
t. s6ffi&i1ntl0 >6stif0 t-1 la;, PI M.t at A$, 8isstat1s and 8isa//li1s t-1 2ati.nal%
9asis standa2d in t-1 sa81 ;a0 t-10 did 1a2li12, and s-.6ld 91 21>1&t1d f.2 t-1 sa81
21as.ns Supra, IID#
Plaintiffs? d61%/2.&1ss &lai8 &an als. 91 @6i&7l0 dis/.s1d .f T. 21&1i'1 a
/21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n, Plaintiffs 86st 8a71 a :&l1a2 s-.;in<= t-at t-10 a21 li71l0
t. /21'ail .n t-1 812its, 96t t-10 d. n.t &it1 a sin<l1 /21&1d1ntial &as1 t-at -as -1ld
t-at a Stat1?s 1nf.2&181nt .f its 8a22ia<1 la;s t. t-1 d1t2i81nt .f .6t%.f%stat1
8a22ia<1s 'i.lat1s d61 /2.&1ss PI M.t at A$%A! T-121 is a <..d 21as.n f.2 t-at"
T13as la; d.1s n.t int12f121 ;it- Plaintiffs? 2i<-t t. 8a220 As al21ad0 13/lain1d,
t-1 2i<-t t. 8a220 d.1s n.t in&l6d1 t-1 2i<-t t. sa81%s13 8a22ia<1 See supra, II5
R1<a2dl1ss, Plaintiffs a21 f211 t. 8a220 in an.t-12 Stat1 t-at /128its s6&- 6ni.ns,
and ind11d t-10 al21ad0 -a'1 See PI M.t at ! In t-1 1nd, Plaintiffs 21s.2t t.
21-as-in< /2i.2, in'alid d61%/2.&1ss a2<681nts See supra, II5
O O O
T-1 C.62t s-.6ld d1n0 Plaintiffs? 21@61st f.2 /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti'1 21li1f
91&a6s1 t-10 -a'1 fail1d t. 8a71 t-1 n1&1ssa20 :&l1a2 s-.;in<= t-at is :21as.na9l0
f211 f2.8 d.69t= t-at t-10 a21 li71l0 t. s6&&11d .n t-1 812its
*A
III# THE BALANCE OF THE HARMS FA*ORS THE STATE#
An in>6n&ti.n ;.6ld i221/a2a9l0 -a28 t-1 Stat1 Plaintiffs s117 t. 1n>.in a
d6l0 1na&t1d &.nstit6ti.nal a81nd81nt and stat6t.20 la;, all .f ;-i&- /ass1d ;it-
.'12;-1l8in< 8a>.2iti1s En>.inin< d18.&2ati&all0 1na&t1d l1<islati.n -a28s stat1
.ffi&ials 90 21st2ainin< t-18 f2.8 i8/l181ntin< t-1 ;ill .f t-1 /1./l1 t-at t-10
21/21s1nt Mar%land v. 1ing, #$$ S Ct #, $ G*D#*H GR.912ts, CJ, in &-a8912sH4
New Motor 5ehi$le Bd. v. +rrin &. Fo2 Co., A$A US #$A!, #$!# G#(CCH GR1-n@6ist,
J, in &-a8912sH G:LAMn0 ti81 a Stat1 is 1n>.in1d 90 a C.62t f2.8 1ff1&t6atin<
stat6t1s 1na&t1d 90 21/21s1ntati'1s .f its /1./l1, it s6ff12s a f.28 .f i221/a2a9l1
in>620=H4 Coal. or !$on. !"uit% v. &ilson, #** F$d C#), C#( G(t- Ci2 #((CH G:LIMt is
&l1a2 t-at a stat1 s6ff12s i221/a2a9l1 in>620 ;-1n1'12 an 1na&t81nt .f its /1./l1
is 1n>.in1d=H
Plaintiffs? all1<1d -a28s, .n t-1 .t-12 -and, a21 ill6s.20 Plaintiffs ass12t
t;. i221/a2a9l1 -a28s" finan&ial l.ss and d1/2i'ati.n .f t-1i2 &.nstit6ti.nal 2i<-t t.
8a220 PI M.t at A) Wit- 21s/1&t t. t-1i2 fi2st ass12t1d <2.6nd, a t18/.2a20
finan&ial l.ss is n1it-12 a s69stantial n.2 i221/a2a9l1 in>620 See 'ennis Melan$on)
*n$. v. Cit% o New +rleans, CD$ F$d *B*, *C( G!t- Ci2 *D#*H G:M121 in>62i1s,
-.;1'12 s69stantial, in t128s .f 8.n10, ti81 and 1n12<0 n1&1ssa2il0 13/1nd1d in
t-1 a9s1n&1 .f Lan in>6n&ti.nM, a21 n.t 1n.6<- T-1 /.ssi9ilit0 t-at ad1@6at1
&.8/1nsat.20 .2 .t-12 &.221&ti'1 21li1f ;ill 91 a'aila9l1 at a lat12 dat1, in t-1
.2dina20 &.62s1 .f liti<ati.n, L;1i<-sM -1a'il0 a<ainst a &lai8 .f i221/a2a9l1 -a28=
Gint12nal @6.tati.n 8a27s .8itt1dHH
*!
Plaintiffs? s1&.nd all1<1d i221/a2a9l1 in>620Id1/2i'ati.n .f t-1i2 2i<-t t.
8a220It62ns 1nti21l0 .n t-1 li71li-..d .f s6&&1ss .n t-1 812its 56t <i'1n t-at
Plaintiffs -a'1 fail1d t. s-.; t-at 1nf.2&181nt .f T13as 8a22ia<1 la;s ;.6ld li71l0
'i.lat1 an0 .f t-1i2 &.nstit6ti.nal 2i<-ts, it &ann.t 91 said t-at t-10 ;.6ld s6ff12 an
i221/a2a9l1 in>620 if /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti'1 21li1f is n.t <2ant1d A9s1nt a
/21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n, t-1 stat6s @6. ;ill 91 8aintain1d and Plaintiffs ;ill
&.ntin61 t. li'1 a&&.2din< t. t-1 26l1s t-at -a'1 <.'12n1d T13as &itiE1ns sin&1 t-1
Stat1?s f.6ndin< A&&.2din<l0, Plaintiffs -a'1 n.t :&l1a2l0 s-.;n= an i221/a2a9l1
in>620 f2.8 1nf.2&181nt .f T13as la;
I*# A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION &OULD DISSER*E THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY
FORBIDDIN' ENFORCEMENT OF DEMOCRATICALLY ENACTED LA&;
DISTURBIN' THE STATUS <UO; AND CREATIN' CONFUSION AND
UNCERTAINTY FOR DEFENDANTS AND SAME6SE) COUPLES ALI$E#
A# En/o.e-ent o/ Dul2 Ena.ted La1 Is In"eentl2 in t"e Pu3li.
Inteest#
A /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n ;.6ld .'122id1 a &.nstit6ti.nal a81nd81nt and t-1
stat6t.20 /.li&0 .f t-1 L1<islat621, ;-i&- a21 t-18s1l'1s :d1&la2ati.nLsM .f /69li&
int121st and /.li&0 ;-i&- s-.6ld 91 /12s6asi'1= 5irginian /%. Co. v. S%s. Fed.n No.
:;, $DD US !#!, !!* G#($CH4 *ll. Bell ,el. Co. v. &orldCom ,e$hnologies) *n$., #!C
F$d !DD, !D$ GCt- Ci2 #(()H G:W-1n t-1 .//.sin< /a2t0 is t-1 21/21s1ntati'1 .f t-1
/.liti&al 92an&-1s .f a <.'12n81nt t-1 &.62t 86st &.nsid12 t-at all >6di&ial
int12f121n&1 ;it- a /69li& /2.<2a8 -as t-1 &.st .f di8inis-in< t-1 s&./1 .f
d18.&2ati& <.'12nan&1=H F.2 t-at 21as.n al.n1, a /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n ;.6ld
diss12'1 t-1 /69li& int121st
*B
B# A Peli-ina2 In4un.tion &ould Unde-ine t"e Pu3li. Inteest
32 C"an+in+ t"e Status <uo#
An in>6n&ti.n at t-1 /21li8ina20 sta<1 ;.6ld als. 91 /a2ti&6la2l0 in>62i.6s t.
t-1 /69li& int121st 91&a6s1 it ;.6ld 1ff1&ti'1l0 &-an<1It18/.2a2il0It-1 l1<al
d1finiti.n .f 8a22ia<1 in T13as T-at ;.6ld 2adi&all0 alt12 t-1 stat6s @6. in
&.nt2a'1nti.n .f t-1 >6stifi&ati.n f.2 /21li8ina20 21li1f :T-1 /62/.s1 .f a
/21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n is 8121l0 t. /21s12'1 t-1 21lati'1 /.siti.ns .f t-1 /a2ti1s
6ntil a t2ial .n t-1 812its &an 91 -1ld= 9niv. o ,e2. v. Camenis$h, A!# US $(D,
$(! G#()#H4 see also Martinez v. Mathews, !AA F*d #*$$, #*A$ G!t- Ci2 #(CBH
G:Mandat.20 /21li8ina20 21li1f, ;-i&- <.1s ;1ll 910.nd si8/l0 8aintainin< t-1
stat6s @6. /1nd1nt1 lit1, is /a2ti&6la2l0 disfa'.21d, and s-.6ld n.t 91 iss61d 6nl1ss
t-1 fa&ts and la; &l1a2l0 fa'.2 t-1 8.'in< /a2t0=H T-1 stat6s @6. in T13as is, as it
-as 911n f.2 all ti81, t-at 8a22ia<1 is d1fin1d as and 21s12'1d 13&l6si'1l0 f.2 :t-1
6ni.n .f .n1 8an and .n1 ;.8an= TEX CONST a2t I, $*GaH4 $ TEX FAM CODE
B*DAG&H G/2.-i9itin< &21ati.n .2 21&.<niti.n .f sa81%s13 8a22ia<1sH S6s/1ndin<
T13as 8a22ia<1 la; ;.6ld &-an<1 t-1 stat6s @6., &.nt2a20 t. t-1 ani8atin< 21as.n
f.2 /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti'1 21li1f
C# A Peli-ina2 In4un.tion &ould Ceate Nu-eous Le+al and
Pa.ti.al Po3le-s /o Sa-e6Se0 Cou,les and De/endants#
A /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n ;.6ld als. /2.d6&1 inn6812a9l1 l1<al and /2a&ti&al
/2.9l18s t-at 6nd128in1 t-1 /69li& int121st in /21di&ta9l1 and &l1a2 l1<al 26l1s A
/21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n 21@6i2in< D1f1ndants t. <2ant and 21&.<niE1 sa81%s13
8a22ia<1s ;.6ld li71l0 91 6nd.n1 90 an int12l.&6t.20 d1&isi.n .f t-1 Fift- Ci2&6it, a
lat12 26lin< .n t-1 812its 90 t-is &.62t, .2 a 26lin< .n a//1al 90 t-1 Fift- Ci2&6it .2
*C
t-1 S6/2181 C.62t And 6nl1ss t-is C.62t, t-1 Fift- Ci2&6it, and t-1 S6/2181
C.62t 6lti8at1l0 a<211d t. &-an<1 1sta9lis-1d &.nstit6ti.nal la; in Plaintiffs? fa'.2,
an0 8a22ia<1s &21at1d .n t-1 9asis .f a /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n ;ill &1as1 t. 13ist
.n&1 t-1 Stat1?s d1finiti.n .f 8a22ia<1 is a<ain 1nf.2&1a9l1
T-1 l1<al and /2a&ti&al &.8/li&ati.ns t-at ;.6ld li71l0 1ns61 ;1i<- -1a'il0
a<ainst /21li8ina20 21li1f C. /espe$t Maine #AC v. M$1ee, B** F$d #$, #B G#st
Ci2 *D#DH G21f6sin< t. /21li8ina2il0 1n>.in a stat1 1l1&ti.n la; d61 t. t-1 :/69li&
int121st in 8aintainin< t-1 stat6s @6. d62in< t-1 /12i.d .f t-1 C.62t?s
d1li912ati.ns,= 9as1d in /a2t .n :t-1 -a28 t. t-1 /69li& int121st f2.8 t-1 &-a.s t-at
;ill 1ns61 if t-1 Main1 1l1&ti.n la;s, ;-i&- -a'1 911n in /la&1 sin&1 #((B, a21
in'alidat1d 90 a &.62t .2d12 in t-1 &26&ial final ;117s 91f.21 an 1l1&ti.n=H Man0
sa81%s13 &.6/l1s and t-1 D1f1ndants ;.6ld 91 fa&1d ;it- t-1 in1'ita9l1 diffi&6lt0 .f
s.2tin< .6t t-1 l1<al and /2a&ti&al /2.9l18s ass.&iat1d ;it- t-1 &21ati.n and
s69s1@61nt t128inati.n .f t-1i2 8a22ia<1s E'120t-in< f2.8 /ass/.2t na81%&-an<1
a//li&ati.ns t. /2.9at1 /2.&11din<s ;.6ld 91 t-2.;n int. &.nf6si.n
F.2 t-is 21as.n, aft12 t-1 f1d12al dist2i&t &.62t in t-1 P2./.siti.n ) liti<ati.n
in Calif.2nia .2d121d t-at sa81%s13 8a22ia<1s &.6ld &.881n&1 in Calif.2nia, t-1
Nint- Ci2&6it sta01d t-1 dist2i&t &.62t?s .2d12 /1ndin< a//1al #err%. v.
S$hwarzenegger, N. #D%#BB(B, D.& N. #A G(t- Ci2 A6< #B, *D#DH And 1'1n aft12
t-1 Nint- Ci2&6it 26l1d P2./.siti.n ) 6n&.nstit6ti.nal, t-1 &.62t sta01d its 8andat1
/1ndin< a//1al t. t-1 S6/2181 C.62t *d, D.& N. A*!%# GJ6n1 !, *D#*H T-1
;isd.8 .f t-1s1 d1&isi.ns is &l1a2" 91&a6s1 .f t-1 /2a&ti&al 2a8ifi&ati.ns .f
*)
t18/.2a20 in>6n&ti'1 21li1f, a dist2i&t &.62t s-.6ld n.t /128it t-1 &.881n&181nt .f
sa81%s13 8a22ia<1s ;-1n 21as.na9l1 d.69t 13ists t-at t-1 dist2i&t &.62t?s
/21li8ina20 26lin< ;ill 218ain t-1 la; Plaintiffs d. n.t 1'1n a&7n.;l1d<1, 86&-
l1ss .ff12 a s.l6ti.n t., t-is s12i.6s /2.9l18 ;it- t-1i2 21@61st1d int12i8 21li1f
D# Plainti//s Ha!e Not %Cleal2 S"o1n( T"at a Peli-ina2
In4un.tion &ould Not Disse!e t"e Pu3li. Inteest#
In t-1 fa&1 .f t-1 si<nifi&ant diss12'i&1 a /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n ;.6ld ;.27
.n t-1 /69li& int121st, as 81nti.n1d a9.'1, Plaintiffs att18/t t. satisf0 t-1i2 962d1n
si8/l0 90 a2<6in< t-at a /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n ;.6ld n.t diss12'1 t-1 /69li&
int121sts 91&a6s1 :/2.t1&tin< Plaintiffs? &.nstit6ti.nal 2i<-ts s12'1s t-1 /69li&
int121st= PI M.t at AC T-is <1n12aliE1d ass12ti.nI;-i&- &.6ld 91 8ad1 in an0
&.nstit6ti.nal &-all1n<1 and d1/1nds 1nti21l0 .n t-1 l1<al 812it .f t-1
&.nstit6ti.nal &lai8Ifalls ;.1f6ll0 s-.2t .f t-1 :&l1a2 s-.;in<= 21@6i21d t. @6alif0
f.2 t-1 :d2asti& 2181d0= .f a /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n As al21ad0 13/lain1d,
Plaintiffs? &.nstit6ti.nal &lai8s a21 n.t li71l0 t. s6&&11d .n t-1 812its, as t-10 a21
f.21&l.s1d 9.t- 90 di21&t, 9indin< S6/2181 C.62t /21&1d1nt and 90 a//li&ati.n .f
1@6al%/2.t1&ti.n and d61%/2.&1ss standa2ds A&&.2din<l0, Plaintiffs -a'1 fail1d t.
811t t-1i2 962d1n, 1s/1&iall0 in li<-t .f t-1 n6812.6s, &.8/1llin< 21as.ns
a2ti&6lat1d 90 Stat1 D1f1ndants t-at a /21li8ina20 in>6n&ti.n would harm t-1
/69li& int121st
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs? /21li8ina20%in>6n&ti.n 8.ti.n s-.6ld 91 d1ni1d

*(
Dat1" D1&18912 *$, *D#$ R1s/1&tf6ll0 s698itt1d
+RE+ A55OTT
Att.2n10 +1n12al .f T13as

DANIEL T HOD+E
Fi2st Assistant Att.2n10 +1n12al

JONATHAN F MITCHELL
S.li&it.2 +1n12al

8s8 Mi$hael #. Murph%
MICHAEL P MURPH,
Assistant S.li&it.2 +1n12al
Stat1 5a2 N. *AD!#D(C

WILLIAM T DEANE
Assistant Att.2n10 +1n12al

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNE, +ENERAL
PO 5.3 #*!A) GMC D!(H
A6stin, T13as C)C##%*!A)
T1l" G!#*H ($B%*((!
Fa3" G!#*H ACA%*B(C
8i&-a1l/862/-0Qt13asatt.2n10<1n12al<.'

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
RICK PERR,, +RE+ A55OTT,
AND DAVID LAKE,
$D
CERTIFICATE OF SER*ICE
I &12tif0 t-at .n D1&18912 *$, *D#$, t-is d.&681nt ;as s12'1d .n &.6ns1l .f
21&.2d, 'ia t-1 C.62t?s CMRECF D.&681nt Filin< S0st18 andR.2 1l1&t2.ni& 8ail

8s8 Mi$hael #. Murph%
MICHAEL P MURPH,
Assistant S.li&it.2 +1n12al

:.. . i
l.ll
r
i:
f. .
I:.,
t .
;.

i

',.

ii
;i.
i.
'\
."',
....
:, .
I
'.'
; .
.'.
",fr
.f
t
j

I
J
FE811 191)
,1-1027
t_USUlIt1U:lllK L - --- --py

iuprtutt QLnurt af lItnittb &taitll
OC'.OBEl'. 'l.'ElW, 1!l72
No. ...".......
:R!CE4l!J) JOBN Bhl(J!.B, eC al.,
.A.ppeilMzts,
-V.-
GERALD R. NELSON,
AppeUCB.
05" Al'l1'JIAL DOM TilE SUl'lIBKK COURT 011'
,JtJ1USDlCTIONAL STATEMENT
R. WZTa:l!:I1IlEE
Minnetlota Uivil Libertietl Union
2SZ3 t Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota IiM13
LY1UI S. CAl!TNllB
1625 Park A.venue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 554Q4;
A'tortltyS for Appellants

29 of
Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 40-1 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 13
\.
.',

,
,,.'
'to" .i ::
.' .,
INDEX
P.tG&
JmusPIO'llOl'tAL SU1'lUtll:N'r
Opinions Below ........___........_..........__..........._.......... 1
JUrisdiction _______........___................_.__....... 2
Sta.tutes Involved ......_......__.._......_ .._..____ 2
QuestionsPresented __....._ _ _ ~ _ ...._._........... S
8ta.tementofthe Case __...____._..__._._......._... 3
HowtheFederalQueSti01lsWereRaised ..._........... 6
TheQuestiollllAreSubstantial ........................._....... 6
1. Responde.nt's refusal to sanctIfy appellants'
marriage deprives appellants 01 'liberty and
property in violation ot the due pr0<Jt8s and
equalprotectionclauses.............___..__._.......__ 11
u. Appellee's reusa.l to lilgitilllate appellants'
.lIULrriage wnstitutesanunwarrantedinvasion
of the priv80Y in vlol8.tion of tlte Ninth and
FourteenthAmendments_......................._........... 18
CWCLl1SIOllT .... _............ _...._ ....___.................................... 19
.A,nmTnIX
Statutes Involved
Chapter 517, Minnesota. statutes...................... 1&
.Alternative Writ of Mandamus ..._........................... lOa
1-0
'n>
~
I\)
a
.....
w
ii
Order the Writ...... ......._..._.._ ..._. III
Amended Order, Findings and Conclusions __,_ 14& '.
Opinion ot the l{innesota Supreme Court, Hea.
Depln COlllity ..:.......,................_..:.:.._..........._....... J8e
. '.
.:TA.BLE"OJ!' Atmiolll'l'lES
Cases;
Bateav. Cityot ;LittleRook,:861 U.S. 516 (1900) ....._.. Lt
noddiev. Connooiicut. 4()1 U.S:.311 (1971) ......11. 13,1'
Cohen v. California, 403U.S. :&:i (1911) ........................ If
Griswoldv. 8131 U.S. 419 (1966) ........11.12, 13.
. , '. U.l8, 19
"
Jonesv.Hallihan, (Ct.Apps. Ky. 1971) ......_ 10
Lovingv.Virgirtia;388U.S. 1(1961) ................11.12,13,14.
.. . 15,16,18,19
McLaughlinv. 879 U.S. 184 (Ui64) ............18,16,18
Meyan.Nebraalm,.262 U.S. 535'(.1923) .............."".11,12.18
Mindel v. United, StatesI;livil'&rvice CommiSSion,
81211'. Su1>P. 48.5.(N.I):Cal. 19"70) ....._............___ 18
Reed v. Reed,92.S.-at.251,30D. e'd.2d225 (1971) -..13,16,
. ... I '. 17,18
RoysterGuano v. U.S.412 (1920) _" 17
I. i
Shapirov. U.s.61S (1969) ._.........._..... 16
Sheltonv. Tucker,3G{U.S.4:79 (1960) _......................... 14
Skinnerv.Oklahoma,lUGtr.S. {1942) ......_.._..11,12,13
Streetv. NewYork. U.S" (19G9) .q..._.....q........ 14-
. ' ,
f"
,', .jl
ill
"PAGE

States Constitution
Amendment _....__..........._.........._.................. 5.6
Eighth Alnendment ..................................._................. 5,6
Ninth Amendment ..._.........._ ..._.__............3,5.6,18,19
Fourteentll Amendment ........._..3,5, 6,11,13,17,18.19
Rule:
Minn. R. Civ. P.52.01 .........- __......._ ................................... 5
Federal Stewte.:
28 U.S.C. ..........................-._................._........... 2
Beate SeaMe:
Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 517 ..............................._..........................2.4,6,13
Other Auflwrities:
Abrs.harnsen, Cl'illle alld the Human Mind 117 (1944) 9
Cburcllill, HOlllOseXUal BelJavior Among Males 19
(1969) .._.........................._....._._..........._...............-.......
FinalReport of the Task Foreeon HomosexuuJ.ity of
the NationalInstituteofMental Health,October10,
1969 ....................__._....:..._.................._........_...............
Finger, Beliefs awl Practices A,,,.ong Mate Golle-gc
J. ABNORIIUL UD SOCIAl". PSl'Ol:L 51
(1947) ......._._ ...__...._..................._...............................
Freud,107Am.J.ofPsychiatry186 (1951) (reprinted)
8
9
1
10
......
w
iv
\. 1".lGI
Hart,Law,LiOOrtyandMorality50 (1963) .................._ 9.
James,TheVarietiesofUeligious lectures
XI,XII,XIII cl902) ........__...........:_........_...h 8 ....._...
. .
.K.ur8l!:Y, SEXUAL Bf;HAV!O!,!- IN' THE M.u:.:m (1948)
7
',' '. .
Westermarek, 2OriginandDevelopment ofthe Moral
Idea484 (1926) .............._......._;......._ ._ ......__......_ 8
"
: .
i,:'
, ., "
. ,
,.
1'1\
.'
1
..
"
.', .,
"
b 'l'Hl!l
&upreme C!tDUrt nt.tf1e Uutte!) &tales
OCTOBER TslI.M', 1912
No._.........
RlOHAm> JOHN' BAuK, et at.,
Appellants,
-V.-
GERALD R. NELIlON,
Appellee.
ON ..u>l'EAL J'BOM THE BUP:a:EHE COURT MINNESOTA
,JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Appellants appeal from the judgment of the Supreme
CourtofMinnesota, entere<l on Oetooor 15, 1911. and sub-
mitthisStatementtoshow thattheSupremeCourtofthe
UDited Stateshasjurhldictionofthoappealandthata sub-
stantialquestioD ispresented. .
OpiniOUli Below
The opinion of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is re
ported a.t 191 N.W.2d 18.1). The opinion of the District
Court for Hennepin County is unreported. Copies of the
opinionsaresetoutin theAppendix,mlt'a, pp.10a-17aand
1Sa23&.
.J:>.
a

(,.)
:r
2
Jurisdiction
Thissuitoriginatedthrougnanalternativewritof mall.
damua to ..tu issuethe.1I18niage license to
appellants. The writ of Jllandamuli was quashed by the
HennepinCounty District Court on JanuaryS. 1971. 0.
appeal, thejudgmf:ntofthe. Supreme CourtofMinnesota
a.IfI:rming theaction:ofthe Court was entere4 011
October15,1911. NoticeofAppel;\l to theSupremeCourl
of the United States'was1Ded iu the Supreme Court or
Minnesota on January..lO. 1912. The time in which to filt
this Jurisdictional.'StatementwasextendedonJanuary12,
11)72, by order of Juitiee nlaokD!un.
.'
The jurisdictioD of" (b!i'Sllpreme'Court to review tbill
deeision OD appeal is by Title 28 u.s.a., Seo-
tion1257(2). .....
" Involved
Appellants have- never been advised by appellee which
statute precludes theiIISlianee of''the Jnarriage license to
them,andtheSupremecoUrtofMinnesotacitesonlyChap.
ter 1111, .in tts,opinion. ACCOrdingly,
thewholeof Chapter51'1.isreproduclld inApp., infra, pp.
1a...9a. .':, . ,:'
:'. ;1
,.
I
..
J I
,", I
,", .,", 'I......'
..
a
QueetioDll Pre.ented
1. Whether a.ppellee's refusal to sanctify appellants'
marriagedeprivesa.ppellantsoftheirlibertytomarry
andoftheirpropertywithoutdue process oflawun
der the Fourteooth Amendmllllt.
2. Whether appellee's refusa.l, purlluant to Minnesota
marriage sta.tutes, to sanctify appellants' marriage
becausebothareofthemalesexviolate.their rights
under ilie equal protection clause ofthe Fourteenth
Amendmllllt.
S. Whether appellee's refusal to sanctify appellants'
marriage deprives appellants of their right to pri-
Va()y under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Statmnent of the Calle'
Appellants Balter and McConnell, two persons of the
male sex, applied for a marriage license on YAy 18, 1910
(T.9;A. 2, 4) at the office of the appellee Clerk of Dis-
triet Courtof HennepinCounty" (T. 10).
l T. refers to the trial trlmllCript. A. refers to the AppendiJ: to
appellants'briefbefore theMumesotll. Supreme Court.
Appe1laut MoCwmell is also petitioner befora this Court in
MOOOllMU v. Ander80!1, petit. for em.filed, No. '1]978 in which
beseekaJ'flviewofthedecisionoftheUnitedStatesCourtof Appeata
for the Eighth Oll'lluit, allowing the Board of Begent1l of the Uni.
versity of Minnesota to refuse bim elllployment lIB head of the
cataloguedivision of theSt.PaulCamPWl Librar), on the groWlds
that"IlispersonalconduBt, l1li repreKt!lIted ill the public and Uni.
versity newa lIIedia. is notcoDsilltent with the interest of the
University." . .
The efforts of appellants to get married evidently percipitatad
the Regents' deewon not to ewployMr. McConnell.
&'
C/)
CD
\'
4
Upon advice of ':the office of the Hennepin County At-
torney.appelleeacceIltedIlPliiillants'applicationandthe....
upon requested a'fonIlal:opinion 'Of County Attol'llef
(A.7-8) todetemiine whether themarriagelicense should
be issued. Inaletterdated May 22, 1970, appelleeNelllOll
notified appellantBaker he "unable to issuetho mar
riage license" "sufficient legal impediment 1iet
thereto prohibiting the marriaS-e of two male persoa."
(A. 1;T. 11). H'Owever, appellant haa ever heeD
informed that lie iii individually incompetent to mar!,),.
andno specific bas';ever been given for notiS9UiDI
thelicense. '.
,', ,
MinnOS'Ota. Statutes;section 1.'117.08 states that only the
following information :will, be elicited c'Oneerning a mar-
riage license: nam.e, residence;date and place 'Of birth.
race, terminati'On''Of pro'lious lllarriage, signature ofap.
plieantanddate Altho'l1gh they,were asked oraUy
atthe time 'Of which,was to be thebride &Dd
whioh was to be the'groom (T. T. 18), the forma for
applicationforamairiageJicense'didnotinquire8S tothe
I . '!I'
sex'Of theapplieants; l-Iowever,appellantsreadilycoucede
thatbothareofthe'male89L
Subsequentto ,den:iil:1'of 'a appellantsconsulted
with legalcounsel. On December 10. 1970, a.ppellants ap.
plied to the Distnct Conn of,Hennepin County for aD
alternativewrit'Of (A. 2),and sucha writ'WU
timely served 'Appellee Nelson continued
to refuse to issue tM appellantsloa ma.rriage license. In
stead, he elected to appear in. C'Om.t, show cause why hi
had not done as oomma.n<led, '.and make his return to the
writ (A.4). ,,'.' :' '.
:;
I", .1
",
..
"
....
5
The matter was tried on January 8, 1971, in District
Court, City of Minneapolis, Judge Bergin prtlsiding
(T.l). Appellants BaJror andMcConneU testified on their
own behalf (T.9;1'.15) asthesolewitnessl:llil. Afteroloil-
ing arguments, he quashed the writ of and
ordered the Clerk of District Court "not to issue a mar-
mgelicense to the individuals involved" (T. 19). An or
der was signed to thQt effect the same day (App. infra,
p. 12&).
Subsequent to the trial, counlilel for appellants moved
the court to fimi the facts IIpecially and statel:leparate1y
its conclusions oflaw pursua.nt to Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
Judge Bergin then madecertain findings of fact and con
clusions of law (App. itn./ra, p. 14&) in an aJUllnded or-
derdatedJanuary29, 1971. Suchfindings andconclusions
were incorporatedintoSlId madepart'Of the order signed
January8, 1911. The Courtfound that the refusal ofap-
pellee toissue themarriageliceasewas nota violation of
M.S. Chapter 517, SlId tllat such refusal was not a viola-
tion of theFirst, Eighth, Ninth or ll'uurteenth Amend-
ments to the U. S. Constitution,
A timely appeal was made to the Supreme Court of
Minnesota. Inan Ol)inion flIed'October 15, 1911, the Su-
preme Courtof Minnesota. affirmed theaction of thelower
court.-
_In early August, 1971, .Tudge Lindsay Arthur of HOlUlepin
CountyJuvenile Oonrtissuedan01:4e1: grantiDg the legal adoption
of Mr. Baker hy Mr. MeConnell. The adoption permitted Mr.
Baker to (!III!.nge Ills name from Riehard Jo1u1 Bilker to Pat Lynn
McConnell, On A.ugust 16, Mr. Mlehlilll Itle(Jonnell allllle applied
for a marriagelicellse in Mankaw, Blue CO\Ulty. Minnesota
fa!'himselfandMr.Uaker,wllo UKed thenaruel'atLynll McConnell.
Under IIlinnel!otli. law, only Olae party need apply for a marriage
license, Since themarriage applielltioll does lIot in'luire lIS
!....
,,
6
How the Fe,deral Were RaiSGd
AppelIants contended thllt if Minnesota Statutes, Chap.
ter 517, were COlllitrutod so as to not allow two persona or
the same sex to lJUliiy, then the"Statutes were in violalioll
of the It'irst, Eighth, Nintll, IUId Fourteenth Amendment.
to the United States Constitution .in their Alternative Writ
of Mandamus (App. in/fa,' pp. lOa-lla}, at tlte Ilsaring
before the District Court on January 8,
1911 (App. infra, '1', 1'28.), ilnd to the Supreme Court or
Milmesota (App. infra, po. constitutional clail1ll
were expres.sly considered 1m9 rejected by both courts
below. :,
The Are, SUh8tlU!tiai
'. . .
The precise question' is t"!'o individuals, solely
because they are of the SA\lle .lIex, 'Ulay be refUsed forma.!
legal sanctification ratilicatipu 'of their marital rela-
tionship. ' , '
At mst, the qnellq'on and relationahip may
well appear ,'to heterosexuala. :But
\ . .'. I
to _, the biae.xual nalne Pllt McConnell doubtleea kept
the cleric from Jullkillg Any about, the seXE$ of the llarti-.
Shortly aftar the Iiceruie iIIlIl,li, Mr. !doCol1lleJl', adoption {If Mr,
llaket' Willi made puhllc .by"Judge Artbul"-ContrafY to Milll1eaota
IllIV. 'the County Attllraey for Earth County then diaeoveHd
that a lIIarrie.ge lkense had isl;ued to ,t,Jle 81)(Iellunts, IIoIld on August
81, he "declared the license void,oIl: growuis," Neverthe-
on September a, tlllI lIppclla.utli'. were married in a
(;eren\<)UY In South Minneapolis. Aoo'!1t a week later the lieenae
WIlS to the Blue Earth CooritY.Clel'k of Dilltrict Oourt. It ia
not known wiIetber lie lIIed it, luit, ullder Ule l\1ilUlesota statllte
Us not required. ;t"urtllfll",' filiuS do.' not ailed Vllliditr.
' ..
..' ....
""
'1'
aeither the question nor the proposed rela.tionship is bi.
lIIItte. Indeed, that first impulse provides us with some
:' sneastll'6 of the continuing Impact on our society of preju-
dice against non-heterosexuals . .And, 8JI iIlwnillated within
the oontext of thiB case, this prejudice has severe eonse
The relationships contemplated is neither grotellque nor
\IIlIlommon. In faet, it has been established that homo-
aexuality is widellpread in our society (as well as all other
societies). Reliable studies have indicated'that a signif-
icant percentage of the tol:al. auult populatil1u ot the United
States have engaged in overt homoseJtuai practices. Nu
.bl,&rOus single sex maritall'elatioDshlps exhit de facto. See,
e.g., A. KIliSli:Y, SZXUAL BEHAVIOfl UI' THE Bl71UN MALl!I
(1948); FiDgor, Bel1l Belie/a and pf'a.ctices A.mong MqJe
College SWiJe'1lJs, 42 J. ABNO.llJl{AL AN'D SOClloL PsYOH. 57
(1947). The refusal to sanetion lIuch relationships is a.
denial of reality. Further, this refusal denies to mllDy
people important property and personal interests.
This Jurisdietionai Statement undertakes to outline the
rmbstantial reasons why persons of tIle same sex would
want to be married in the sigllt Ot the law. Substantial
property rigltta, and other Interests, frequently turn on
legal retJognition of the marital relationship. Moreover,
both the personal and public symbolic importance of legal
ratification of !lame selt marriages cannot be underesti-
mated. On the personal side, how better may two people
pledge love and devotion to Dlle another than by marriage.
On the public side, preju(liee against homosexuals, which
tends to bp. phobie, is unlikely to be cured until the public
a.eknowledges that hOln03exna!s, like all people, are en
titled to the full protection and recognition of the law
8
Only then will public perceive that homosexuals are
not freaks or uniortl,mate to be Hwept under
the carpetor to be for IlllXioUIl pJiantasies aboul
one'sidentity orchildrElarmg
..
A vast literature reveals'.'sevei'a!'IlypotheseN to expla.in
the deep prejudice aga"imst homosexuals. One authority
maintained thathostility, tohqmoseximl conductWall orig.
inlillyan"aspectof';lcOnOmiCIl," in thn.t'itreflocted the eco.
nomic importance of lurge'fuililly grtlupings in pastoral
and agriculturuJ. societies, E. Westc.rDJarck, 2Origin and
Development of 140ral Idea 484 (1926). A secOlid
theorysuggests thathomosexuality wall originally forbid.
denby the"early part.ofeffor.ts to "surround
,,the appetitive with prohibitions." W.
HomosexualBehaviorAlDOngMaillS19 (1969). Underthi'
theory, opposition to clolll'ly related to
religious imperatives,'fh 'the need to establish
moral Buperiority ;t'.agan [d., at 17; ses alllO
W. James, TheVa.rieties of Heligiolls Experience, lectures
Xl,XII, XIII (1902).' ":" ,,!
",,!'
WhatevertheapPl'opriate ofitsorigins,psy.
chiatrists and sociologists'are nearly agreed on the
reasons for the of the postility. Itis ODe of
".
those"ludicrousandhamiful
tJ
prohibitionsbywhichvirtu.
, . ,
ally alI sexual matter!! are still. .reckoned "socially taboo,
illegal,pathological,orhighlycontroversiaL" W.
supra, at26. It continul!1l; a8it q;Uite with.
out regard to the aetual uhara9,te#stics of homosexuality.
Itisnourished, all are thevariQUS oULer sexual taboos, by
anamalgamoffeara:iLd- ,ld., at20..35. ItUr sup-
ported by a popular of the causes and charac-
teristicsofhomosexuality that'isno'more deservingof our
reliance than the J,i1rnperor belief that homo-
9
sexuality causes earthquakes. H. Hart, Law, Liberty and
Morality 50 (196B).
There is now responsible evidence that the public at-
titudetowardthehomosexualcommunityisaltering. Thus,
the Report of the 'l'ask Force on Homosexuality of
the National Institute of Mental Health, October 10, 1969,
states (pp. 18-19):
"Although many people continue to regard homo-
sexual aotivlties with l'epugnance, there is evidence
thatpublicattitudesIlrc changing. Discreothomosexu-
ality,togetherWiUL nJanyotheraspectsofhumansexua.l
behavior, is b4Jing.recognized more and more as the
private business of the individual rather than a sub.
jeCltforpublicregulationthroughstatute. Manyhomo-
i
sexuals are good citizens, holding regular jobs and
!
leadingproductive lives." I
To a certainextentthe new attitudes mirror increasing
!
scientific recognition that homosexuals are "normal," and
that acoordingly to penalize individuals for engaging in
suchconductisimproper. Forexample,inD. Abrahamsen,
Crime and the Human Mind 117 (1944), it is stated:
"AllpeoplehaveoriginallylSisexualtendencieswhich
are more or less developed aDd which in the course I
I
oftimenormallydeviateeitherinthedirectionofmale
or female. This may indicate that a trace of homo.
I
sexuality, no matter how weak it may be, exists in
everyhumanbeing."
I
Sigmund Freud summed up the present overwhelming
i
attitude of the scientificcommunity when he wrote as fol- i
lowsin1935:
I
11
[
o
Q?
...,.
...,.
......
N
o
o
.. (0
I.

:, .

HIlI '. '
10
"IIomoseS:llality ill assnredly no' advantage but it i.
nothing to be ot', no no (tegrlldation. it
cannot be classified as an ilInclIlJ i we consider it to be>
a variation of the sexual produced by a eel-
tain arrest of sexual ,development. MWlY highly J't.
spectable of arte!,ent and Dlodern time!! JlILve
been hOlllosexualS, ,silvera} 'of tlle greatest lnen amDIIA;'
them (Plato, cia Vinci, e1.(:.,.
It is a great injnstice to pers!!Cute homosexuality 81
crime and cruelty tuo." 'lteprinted in 101 .Am. J. oC
Psychiatry 786..81'
In the face of seientifiil knqwledge and changing public
.. , li:tti.tudes it ill plainly. all 'Freud said, "a great injustice"
to peraooute homosexUfl'ls. . _. '
Ttlis injustice is COIJlPuunQ.'ed, we suggest, by the flltt
that there is no jUlitificatiOD in for the discriminatioa
agailUlt homosexuals.' -;Beeause. orabilling prejudice, appel.
lants are being delll'ived of', a right-the tight to
marry. As a. result or. this they have been
denied numerous benefits .awarded by .law to oth&rB I!imi-
Jarly situated-for childle{!s heterosex\'w couple.
Since this action ''Ilinin filed, others have been insti.
tuted in other stat4!a. 'I'Jlis C9uf t 'SI decision, therefore,
would affect the mauiage of virtually every State
in the Union. '''..
,,'. \, \.
!,'
,
'/
,
See, e.g., Jon611 v (Ct. Apps. Ky. 1971).
.. 'I,.
11
J.
Respondent'a refwlal to ea.a.ctffy appeJJaa18' marria,8
deprives appeUaDlti of liberty and property ill violation
of the due prOCNa aDd protec:tloa claUlleti.
The right to marry is itself a fundamental interest, fully
protected by the due process and equal protection clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Boddie v. Oomr.ecticut,
401 U.S. 371 (1971); Lovi'flg v. VirO-i",ia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ;
Griswold v. OcmnBctiC'Ut, 381 U.S. 479 (1960); 8'ki'n'ller v.
Ohkwltrw., S16 U.s. 535 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 202
U.S. 535 (1923). In addition, significant prnperty interests,
also protected by the due process cla.use, flow from. the
legally ratified marital reJationship_ In his testimony at
the trial, the appellant Baker enumerated six sucb in.
terestl! which he cannot enjoy because of the State's re.
funl to recognize his marriage to the appellant MeCOWlell:
L '!'he ability to inherit from one another by intestate
succession.
2. The availability of legal redress for tlle wrongful
death of a partner to a marriage.
. a. The ability to sue under hearlbalm statutes wllere
in eft'ect.
4. Legal (and cOllsequently cOmmunity) recognition for
their relationship. '
5. Property beIlefits SOC}1 iUl'the a.bility to own p rollerty
by tenancy-by-tbe-entirety in states where permitted.
6. Tax benefits under both Minnesota and feeeral stat
utes. (AmOl1g others, theB8 include death tax benefits
I
I
-,
I
i
I
i
<
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
)
I
12
and income under the revieed Fet!-
eral Income .
There are irul.lnneraule other legal advantages that CAlI
be gained only inthe relatiol1$hip. Only a few or
these will be listed ,fer iIlust.I:ll.tive !Jurposes. Some lltat'!
climinallaws prollibit aeXllll.l allts between unmarried per.
SOliS. YIUlY governu.ent beneJi.ts aro available only to
spouses and to surviVing spouses. .This is true, for ex-
amIlle, of many Rights to public bouamg
frequently turn on "8, inariW relationship. FInally, wnell
there is a formal lnl/-r.Ual on,! spouse CSJInot
.. give or be forced to, evidence againat the other.
The individnal's iritel:esta,' pereol\a't and property, in ..
marriage, are deemed fundal,ellta(: e.g., Boddie v.
Oom:.ecticut, .supra; V. Jlirginia, 8fllJra,j Griswold
v. Oonnecticut, v. Oklakonuz, 8Up1'a; Meyer
v. .supra:' ':!-'lIUS' !illirria&,e comprilles a blUldle
of and interests, ml!-y.'not be interfered with,
under the guise of protecting the public interest, by gov-
ernment action which' hi or' invidious or wftiJol1t
at least IIreasonable.; to 80m\,! important and legiti.
:m.a.te state purpose. Fl.&: Meyer v. ;Nebrll8ka, 8UprQ.. In
fact, because marriagli is'!l- fundamental burna:n right, the
state must demonstrate a subord!nllting interest wllich Is
comp&lling, before it. may 'interfere.. with or prohibit mar-
riage. Cf. Bates v. Cit'll of Wlle,;R4t:k, 361 U.s. 616 (1960).
In a sense, the ana,I-ysi.s presented here involves' a.mWDg
of both dne ptotection doctrines. Aft
they an applied to ilie w? hI disability at
issue in this case, they tend to mel'S'!. Refusal
to sanctify a marriage solely because both parties to the
'11 .'
18
relationship are of thll same sex is precisely the kind ot
arbitrary and invidiously discriminatory conduct that is
prohibited by the F.ourteenth .A..mendaumt equal protectioD
and due proceliB clausell. Unless the refusal to sanetify
can be shown to furtber Ilome lcgitbnate government in-
terest, important personal and property rights of Ole per-
Bons who wish to many are arbitrarily denied without
due process of law, and tlte class of persons W}IO wish to
engage in single sex marriages are being subject to in-
vidious discriminlltion. With regard to the due process
component, see Boddie v. Co-nnecticut, St'P7'O,j Grnwold v.
OOMleCtiaut, 8'Uprg, (all the tnajority opinions); 1I1eyer v
Nebraska} supra. With regard to tile Bqllsll>rotectioD COlll-
ponent of this argument, see Loving v. Virgi.1'ia, S1I.pra;
McLaughU", v. Ftorido., 379 U.S. 184 (HJ64) j Bkitlner v.
0"141107114, .supra; c. Reed v. Reed, 92 S. Ct. 251, 80
L.ed.2d 225 (1971).
Applying due process notioia, in this Ctlse, the sUi.te has
not shown any reason, much Jess a compelling one, for
refusing to sanctify the marital relationship. Its action,
therefore, arbitrarily invades a fundamental right.
Separately, each appellant is eompetent to marl')' under
the qualifications sllCcilied, in Minnesota Statutes Sections
511.08, subd. 3, 517.02-517.03. CompaN Loving v. Virginia,
.supra. 'Why, then, do they beeome incompetent w}len they
seek to marry eacb otherf
The problem, according to the M'i:nnesota. Supnme Court,
appears to be definitional ox: historical. The institution of
marriage "a.s a. union of a man and a woman, uniquely
involving the procreation and rearing of children within
a family, is as old as the Book of Genesis" (App., infra,
pp.208-21a). 011 its face, however, Minnesota law neither
i
o
Q?
.....
.....

&S
-- 0
o
,....,
I.....
"w
14
statesnorimplies this deihlition. F\\rthermol'e, the anUq.
uityof a restrictioncertaUlJy 110 bearingon itsconsti.
tutionality,anddoes not,withoutInytlringadditional,dt.m.
onstratethattheatate'liirlterestiii tin6ltlliberingtliematH.l
relationshipis8ubordi.n!LJuignnd'compelling. Connecticut's
:restriction on birthcontrohfevicetlhad been 011 ite statute
booksfornearlya centuty,beforetJlil! Courtstruckitdown
on the ground that itlUiconstitlltionally invlI.dml tile lId.
vacy of the Jtlantall'eltl.tionsltip. Gt'is'WolcL v. COn1leCliCIII,
sUP""
. "SurelytheM.j.nnesota'SUlll'lllne cannotbesuggest
ingthatsingle sex lI.1ay.be'hlJiuied becaUJIe they
are bya or os'r population to be
sociallyreprehensible. 81Jcll Iigovernmental motive would
be neither substl!.n..tial.nor, 1iubordinating nor legitimatl>.
See, e.g., lAving 'v; Viiginw':supra; 001,e", v. OolilorniD,
403 U.S. 15 (1971v; 8trCt!.t .NewlYork, 894 U.s. 576
. I,
. , ' (1969).',' .'
Even assuming tllat eonstitutionally
make marriageability on the partners'win-
I,
.ingqelJll and a.bility to a,nd 'to raise children,
:Minallsota's absoluta bap QP'>lingle.:sell: marriages would
stillbe1lll.eonstitutional. tlllYUgh thegovernmental
purposebe legitimateand 8l1bstantial{,(hatpurposecannot
be pllrslled by means tllat hroadly':sti'fle fundamental por
sonallibertieswhenthef.pd,canbe m?r8narrowlyachieved.
The breadth of legislative- nh;:iclgment"must be viewed in
theligbtoflessdrasticmeaJI8 ffJr';'chievingthesa.mebasic
purpose." SMUOGv. 364 tr:S, 479, 488 (1960).
Thereisnothingin tla!np,tm's of 8iIX marriagaa that
precludesprocreationan,lI,cbild Adoption isquite
"
"
15
clearlyasocially formofprocreation. Italready
renders procreative many marriages between perllons of
, oppositesexesinwhich thepartnel'8arephysicallyoremo
tionally Ullable to conceive their own Of late,
even single persons have become eligible to be adoptive
parents.
Appellants subllut thllrefore, that the appellee cannot
describea legitimategovernmentlnterestwhich is so com
pellingthatno lessrestrictivemeanscanbefl:>und tosetlUre
that interest, ifthere is oue, than to proscribe single sex
mlU'liages. And,evenifthetestto beapplied todetennine
whether the Minnesota proscription offends due process
involves only qnestiolls of wluttller Minnesota has acted
arbitrarily,capriciouslyorunreasonably,appellantssubmit
that the appeUee has failed under that test too. Minne-
sota'sproscriptionsimplyhasnotbeenshown toberation-
allyre1ated toanygovernnlental interest.
The touchstone of the equal protection doctrine as it
bellrII on this ease is found in Loving v. Virginia, 388
U.S. 1 (1967). l"1Jle iSllUe befol'a the Court in that ease
waswhetherVirginia's statute,prohibit-
ingmarriagesbetween 11ctSODs of the Cal1caaian race and
any other race was unconstitutional. The Court struck
doWll. thestatutesaying:
There is patently no legitimAte overriding purpose
I.:ndependent of illvidioUfl racial discrimination which
justi1iesthisclassification. Thefact thatVirginiapro.
hibits only interracial marriages involving wllite per
sons demonstrates that Ule racial clallSifications must
standon own justification as measures designed
to maintain Wbite Supremacy. We Ilave eonsistently
1
t-
0\' ..
'.
I
I'
I,
I
\
I
16
:. f
denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict
the rigJlts 01 on ac.count of race. There C&II
be no doubt tltai' :s:esh'icillng the freedom to marry
solely because of J..Mial.cl!l,saifications violates the cell-
tni meaning of Clause. Lot'ill,
v. Virginia, SSS .U:S. 8t'1112. ..
The Minnesota Supl'eme Court ruled that the Lovittg
decision is inapplicable -to tile instant case' on the gronnd
" _ .,that "there is a clear. between a marital reHtric
tion based merely upon rAce Ilnd one h;1lied \\11011 the funda.
mental difference in sex!' (App:, inf;'u, 1). 28a). It is tnl!
that the inherently susi;ect test which thill Court applied
to classifications based UllOn tace., (ooe, e.g., Loving ,.
Virginia, supra,; v. 'Flqrida, supra), has not
yet been extended to based upon lIell: (see
Iteea v. Reed, 92 S. Ot: 251., 30' L. ed.2d 225 (1971). How.
ever, this Court bas 'ill(licated Ulat a fundamental
right-eUc}1 as denied .to a group hy some
'..
classification, the dewal liltoulii be j114ged by the stand/l.fd
that places on the. 'burden of delnoniltrating
a legitimate subordinating that is compelling.
Shapiro v. Thompllo.n, 3lJ4' U.S. 618.. (1969). As we have
already indicated neiUler a. nor a subordinating
reason for this halJ' been. or can be ascribed.
Even if we assume. that the classmeation at illSue in this
easc ill not to be judgea .iIY' more. stringent "constitu.
tionally snspect" an4 interest" standards,
the :Minnesota claflllifi.cation is infirm.
.: ..
The discrimination jn. this caee is one of gender. Espe.
eialJy significant in this tilt'! Court's recent de-
cision in Reed v . .Reedi 92 S. Ct. 251, 80 L. ed.2d 225 (19'11),
. .....
.,"',
11
which held that an IdaJ10 statute, which provided that as
between panORa equaUy qualified to administer estates
males must be vre1'el'red to females, is violative of tlle
equal protection claUiSe of the Fourteenth Amendnillut.
There the Court sa.id (30 L, ed.2d at 229):
In applying that ('laU5C, this Court lIas consistently
reeognil1led that tile Fourteenth aIllllndment does not
deny to States the power to treat different elasses of
persons in different ways. [Citations omitted.] Tlle
Equal Protection Cla.utle of tllat Amendment does,
however, deny to States the power to legislate tllat
different treatment be accorded to persons placed by
a etatute into different classes on the basis of criteria.
wholly unrelated to Ule objective of that statute. A
elassmcatlon "must be reasonable, Uf)t arbitrary, aud
must reat upon some ground of difference lllloVillg iii.
fa.ir and substantiaL relation to tbe object of the legis.
lation, so that all persona similarly circuIl:lstaneed
lIhall be treated alike," Itollster Gl'ano Co. v. Vi"ginia,
253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920).
Childless sa:me sp-x couples, tor example. are "similarly
circumstanced" to childleSll heterosexual couples. Thus,
under the Reed and Royster cases, they must be treated
alike.
Even when judged by tide less stringent standard, the
Minnesota CIIlBSifica.tioll ea.nnot PIlBS constitutional JIIuster.
First, it is difticult to ascertain tlte objl'flt of the legislation
coustrued hy the M!nnesota 'collrts. SecDnd, wbatever ob-
jeots are ascribed for the legislation do not bear any fair
and substantial relationship to the gronnd upon which the
"
18
diff'eren(le is drawn. same sex and llilrerent lex
lIlarriasea.'
.......,-
IL' I'
.,'
Appellee's refulal ,.legitmiiue. appellants' mD'l'iIIp
cOlUlituta an UDW8ft'8Dled invasion of the pthaey hi
vioilltion of the Niulb 'sud Fourleenlb 'Amendmeote.
t"
, , .
, M.arriage between two is, jr' persona! affair, Oll&
",,, whicll the state may or, ellc\llI1ber only when
is a compelling reason' to' do, 'so. Mar'rlage and marital
privacy are risllts protected by the Ninth
I, '
Amel1illlleDt as wen ai",tlie, Fourteentti Amendment due
proee8ll cl.&use. By not allow,ing appellants the legitimacy
of their marriages. the' st.,te' is tllem this buu:
rigbt and unlawfully medUluig in tlleij: privacy.
To hold that a light 110 and
so deep-rooted in 9!lt" ,lIociety &1;' tbe right of privacy
in murlage maybe..,iof,inged liecause that right Is
not guaran.ted in so' many '\Vords'.by tlle first eigbt
amendments to the is to ignore the Ninth
Amendment and to. live it nO'e!lect whatsoever.
Gri&wo/dv. U.S. 410';4fll-492 (Ooldberg, J..
concurring); see also, MiniM ,v. State:. Civil Serv
,ice Oommi.ssion., 312 F:SI1PP. 48a (N.D. Cal. 1970). Ac.
cordingly, MiDllesota's refullal,to legitimate the appellants'
marriage Inerely of tile, seX of tile 1l.1>llucants ie
..... ''"\',
The fact that tile parti. tb the dfSh'lld lWlIe sex marriage .&r"e
not bUmid from marril:l.BlI altfigethN" I, to tile constitu-
tionl1l i/Olue. Iilee Reed v. &wtL, IIll)''''; f..olillU 'V. VwgtlliG, supr/%;
v. PklriM., SIIpr3.
I
j
19
i
a denial of the right to marry and to privacy reserved i
to them of the Ninth and Fourleeoth Anum(\m.enbl, See

Grl8wolrl v. O()MlectiC'IIt, 81Ipra; Lovfng v. 388
i
U.s. 1 (1967); cr. Boddie v. O<mnectiC1.d, 401 U.S. 371
I
(19n). Indeed, it is the most fundaJmmtal invasion of
i
!
,
the privacy of the marital relationship for the state to
attempt to scrntinize the intemllI dynamics of that rela-
tionship. Absent a showing of compelling interest, or an
invitation from a party to the relationship, it is none of the
I
state's business whet.hol' the individua.ls to the relationship
intend to procreate or not. Nor is it t}le state's buein8sa to I
determine whether tIle parties intend to engage in Bex acts
'or any IJarticular sex acts. Cf., e.g., Gri8wola v. Oon.necti-
\
cut,
CONCLUSION
For the reasons eel forlh above. prohable jUl'iAdiclion \
should he Doted.
i
Respectfully 8ubUlitted,
R. MlO&Bto WE'I'iLPBBE \
Minnesota Civil Lioorties Union
2323 East Hennepin A venue 1
MiDneapolis. Minnesota SS413
\
i
I
LUN S. CASl'll1B&
I
i
!
1625 park Avenue
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55404
Atto,neys tor .J..ppeUant.s
,
!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CLEOPATRA DE LEON, NICOLE
DIMETMAN, VICTOR HOLMES, and
MARK PHARISS,
Plaintiffs,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-982-OLG

RICK PERRY, in his Official Capacity as
Governor of the State of Texas, GREG
ABBOTT, in his Official Capacity as Texas
Attorney General, GERARD RICKHOFF,
in his Official Capacity as Bexar County
Clerk, and DAVID LAKEY, in his Official
Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas
Department of State Health Services,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court having
considered Plaintiffs evidence and motion and the response by Defendants is of the opinion that
the Plaintiffs motion should be DENIED.
It is accordingly ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction is hereby
DENIED.

SIGNED this _____ day of ________________, 20____.

____________________________________
THE HONORABLE ORLANDO L. GARCIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5:13-cv-00982 - #40

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

5:13-cv-00982 - #40

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

También podría gustarte