3:14-cv-01253 #50

8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

1/35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ADA MERCEDES CONDE VIDAL,

et.als.

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

ALEJANDRO J. GARCIA PADILLA,

et.als.

DEFENDANTS,

AND

Capellanes Internacionales

Cristianos Len de Jud, Inc.

PROPOSED INTERVENOR

NO. 3:14 cv-01253

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION

TO INTERVENE (DKT. 46)

To the Honorable Court:

Comes now, Proposed Intervenor Capellanes Internacionales

Cristianos Len de Juda, Inc., and through the undersigned

attorney, respectfully alleges and prays as follows:

1.

Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendants Motion to

Intervene on September 22, 2014.

2.The appearing Proposed Intervenors respectfully request

this Honorable Court to grant them leave to file a reply

to said Opposition.

Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 50 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 3

8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

2/35

2

3.

On September 8, 2014, this Honorable Court issued Order

denying Proposed Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time

to File Answer, filed on August 28, 2014. This Honorable

Court stated that Once the Court makes a determination

on the motion to Intervene, it will set the deadlines for

answering the complaint. There is no status conference

yet scheduled at this time.

4.

The appearing party is asking this Honorable Court to

grant them leave to file a reply to the Opposition filed

by Plaintiffs given the fact that new and strong arguments

have been resolved in a recent Opinion relevant to this

controversy.

5.On September 3, 2014 a federal judge upheld Louisianas

state ban on gay marriage. This case has the same subject

matter of that litigation. The ruling in Robicheaux v.

Caldwell Case, 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC (attached herein),

was based on U.S. District Court evaluation that

Louisianas law was supported by rational basis. The

decision stablishes that the State of Louisiana has

a legitimate interest under a rational basis

standard of review or addressing the meaning of marriage

through the democratic process.

6.

The Judge stated in that case that the defendants assert

a legitimate state interest in safeguarding thatfundamental social change, in this instance, is better

cultivated through democratic consensus. The district

court in this case was right to conclude, as the U.S.

Supreme Court did in its United States v. Windsor, 133 S.

Ct. 2675 (2013), that marriage law is the business of the

states. In addition, the Judge stated in that case that

the Defendans failed to recognize that neither the Supreme

Court nor the Fifth Circuit has ever before defined sexual

orientation as a protected class, despite opportunities

to do so.

7.This is a very pertinent part of the opinion since the

appearing partys arguments to substantiate proper

standing to intervene are precisely based on the great

significantly protectable interest the Christian

Chaplains have arising from fundamental constitutional

rights, and the fact that the Defendants presence is


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

3/35

3

insufficient to adequately represent Christian Chaplains

position and their religious and faith based fundamental

interests.

8.Since the appearing party has a legitimate interest in

safeguarding fundamental social change because of theirown constitutionally protected liberties and religious

freedoms are in jeopardy, the Proposed Intervenors have

the right to be a party in this litigation.

9.

This case was not mentioned on the Memorandum in Support

to Motion to Intervene because it was published 6 days

after the appearing party filed the said motion.

10. This motion is timely and no delay or prejudice is

caused by the granting of this leave to file reply.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable

Court grants the appearing Proposed Intervenors leave to file

reply.

I hereby certify that on this same date, I have filed

electronically the foregoing motion with the Clerk of the Court

using the CM-ECF system, which will send an electronic copy to

all attorneys of record.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.In San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 6th, 2014.

Ivette Montes, USDC-PR Bar No.215512

/s/ Sonimar Lozada Rodrguez

Sonimar Lozada, USDC-PR Bar No.227113

ALIANZA DE JURISTAS CRISTIANOS, INC.

Suite 102, PO Box 11850

San Juan, PR 00922-1850

Tel. (787)889-1264

Tel. (787)614-1413

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

4/35

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

EASTERN DI STRI CT OF LOUI SI ANA

J ONATHAN P. ROBI CHEAUX, ET AL. CI VI L ACTI ON

v. NO. 13- 5090 C/ WNO. 14- 97 & NO. 14- 327

J AMES D. CALDWELL, SECTI ON "F"LOUI SI ANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS

Bef ore t he Cour t are cr oss mot i ons f or summary j udgment . The

Cour t f i nds t hat def endant s i n t hi s passi onat el y char ged nat i onal

i ssue have t he more persuasi ve argument . The St ate of Loui si ana

has a l egi t i mat e i nt er est under a r at i onal basi s st andar d of r evi ew

f or addr essi ng t he meani ng of marr i age thr ough t he democrat i c

pr ocess. For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or

summar y j udgment i s DENI ED and def endant s' mot i on f or summar y

j udgment i s GRANTED.

Backgr ound

These consol i dat ed cases chal l enge t he const i t ut i onal i t y of

Loui si ana' s ban on samesex mar r i age and i t s choi ce not t o

r ecogni ze samesex mar r i ages t hat ar e l awf ul i n ot her st at es.

Pl ai nt i f f s i ncl ude si x samesex coupl es who l i ve i n Loui si ana and

ar e val i dl y mar r i ed under t he l aw of anot her st at e, one samesex

coupl e who seeks t he r i ght t o mar r y i n Loui si ana, and t he For umf or

1

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 32Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 50-1 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 32

8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

5/35

Equal i t y Loui si ana, I nc. , a nonpr of i t advocacy or gani zat i on.

Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat Ar t i cl e XI I , Secti on 15 of t he Loui si ana

Const i t ut i on, 1 whi ch def i nes mar r i age as bet ween one man and one

woman, and ar t i cl e 3520( B) of t he Loui si ana Ci vi l Code, 2 whi ch

deni es r ecogni t i on of samesex mar r i ages cont r act ed i n ot her st at es

as bei ng agai nst Loui si ana' s st r ong publ i c pol i cy, vi ol at e t hei r

const i t ut i onal r i ght s t o Equal Pr ot ect i on and Due Pr ocess. 3 They

1 Mar r i age i n t he st at e of Loui si ana shal l consi stonl y of t he uni on of one man and one woman. No

of f i ci al or cour t of t he st at e of Loui si ana shal lconst r ue t hi s const i t ut i on or any st at e l aw t or equi r e t hat mar r i age or t he l egal i nci dent st her eof be conf er r ed upon any member of any uni onot her t han t he uni on of one man and one woman. Al egal st at us i dent i cal t o or subst ant i al l y si mi l art o t hat of mar r i age f or unmar r i ed i ndi vi dual s shal lnot be val i d or r ecogni zed. No of f i ci al or cour tof t he st at e of Loui si ana shal l r ecogni ze anymar r i age cont r act ed i n any ot her j ur i sdi ct i on whi chi s not t he uni on of one man and one woman.

La. Const . ar t . 12, 15.

2 A pur por t ed mar r i age bet ween per sons of t he samesex vi ol at es a st r ong publ i c pol i cy of t he st at e ofLoui si ana and such a marr i age cont r acted i n anotherst at e shal l not be r ecogni zed i n t hi s st at e f or anypur pose, i ncl udi ng t he assert i on of any r i ght orcl ai m as a r esul t of t he pur por t ed mar r i age.

La. Ci v. Code ar t . 3520( B) .

3 Pl ai nt i f f s i n Case Number 14- 97 chal l enge Ar t i cl e XI I ,

Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on and Loui si ana Ci vi l Codear t i cl e 3520( B) . I n t hei r pr ayer f or r el i ef i n t hei r compl ai nt ,t hose pl ai nt i f f s mi st akenl y r ef er t o Code ar t i cl e 3520( B) ( 1) , whi chdoes not exi st , and t o Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 18 of t he Const i t ut i on,but el sewhere i n the compl ai nt make cl ear t hat t hey mean Sect i on15. Pl ai nt i f f s i n Case Number 14- 327 chal l enge "Ar t i cl e XI I ,Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on, Ar t i cl e 3520( B) of t he

2


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

6/35

al so ur ge t hat t he Loui si ana Depar t ment of Revenue I nf or mat i on

Bul l et i n No. 13- 024, 4 whi ch r equi r es samesex coupl es l awf ul l y

mar r i ed i n ot her st at es t o cer t i f y on t hei r Loui si ana st at e i ncome

Loui si ana Ci vi l Code, and any ot her Loui si ana l aws t hat pur por t t odeny r ecogni t i on t o t he mar r i ages of Pl ai nt i f f s and ot her same- sexcoupl es who ar e mar r i ed under t he l aw of anot her j ur i sdi ct i on. "Al t hough t hose pl ai nt i f f s do not speci f i cal l y i dent i f y t he "ot herLoui si ana l aws" i n t hei r compl ai nt , pl ai nt i f f s' suppl ement al br i efsubmi t t ed on J ul y 16, 2014 r equest s " decl ar at or y j udgment hol di ngt hat Loui si ana Ci vi l Code ar t i cl es 86, 89, 3520( B) , and Ar t i cl e 12,Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on ar e unconst i t ut i onal . . . andt he Cour t shoul d enj oi n t hei r enf or cement . " Ar t i cl e 86 of t he

Loui si ana Ci vi l Code, l i ke Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si anaConst i t ut i on, def i nes mar r i age as "a l egal r el at i onshi p bet ween aman and a woman. " Code art i cl e 89, si mi l ar t o Code art i cl e 3520,pr ohi bi t s pur port ed marr i ages bet ween persons of t he same sex.

4 The bul l et i n pr ovi des i n par t :

I n compl i ance wi t h the Loui si ana Const i t ut i on,t he Loui si ana Depart ment of Revenue shal l notr ecogni ze samesex marr i ages when det ermi ni ngf i l i ng stat us . I f a t axpayer ' s f ederal f i l i ngst at us of mar r i ed f i l i ng j oi nt l y, mar r i ed

f i l i ng separ at el y or qual i f yi ng wi dow i spur suant t o I RS Revenue Rul i ng 2013- 17 [ r ul i ngt hat samesex coupl es l egal l y mar r i ed i nst at es t hat r ecogni ze such mar r i ages wi l l bet r eat ed as mar r i ed f or f eder al t ax pur poses] ,t he t axpayer must f i l e a separ at e Loui si anar et ur n as s i ngl e, head of househol d orqual i f yi ng wi dow, as appl i cabl e. Thet axpayer ( s) who f i l ed a f eder al r et ur npur suant t o I RS Revenue Rul i ng 2013- 17 may notf i l e a Loui si ana st at e i ncome t ax r et ur n asmarr i ed f i l i ng j oi nt l y, marr i ed f i l i ng

separ at el y or qual i f yi ng wi dow. The t axpayermust pr ovi de t he same f ederal i ncome t axi nf or mat i on on the Loui si ana St at e Ret ur n thatwoul d have been pr ovi ded pr i or t o t he i ssuanceof I nt er nal Revenue Ser vi ce Rul i ng 2013- 17.

La. Revenue I nf o. Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 ( Sept . 13, 2013) .

3


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

7/35

t ax ret ur ns t hat t hey ar e si ngl e, vi ol at es t hei r Fi r st Amendment

f r eedom of speech. Pl ai nt i f f s name Ti m Bar f i el d, t he Loui si ana

Secr et ar y of Revenue, Devi n Geor ge, t he Loui si ana St at e Regi st r ar ,

and Kat hy Kl i eber t , t he Loui si ana Secr et ar y of Heal t h and

Hospi t al s, as def endant s.

The par t i es have f i l ed cr oss mot i ons f or summar y j udgment .

Al l i ssues have been br i ef ed and t he Cour t has hel d or al ar gument . 5

I .

Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56 i nst r uct s t hat summar yj udgment i s proper i f t he r ecor d di scl oses no genui ne di sput e as t o

any mat er i al f act such t hat t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. No genui ne di sput e of f act exi st s i f

t he r ecor d t aken as a whol e coul d not l ead a r at i onal t r i er of f act

t o f i nd f or t he non- movi ng par t y. See Mat sushi t a El ec. I ndus. Co.

v. Zeni t h Radi o Cor p. , 475 U. S. 574, 586 ( 1986) . A genui ne di sput e

of f act exi st s onl y "i f t he evi dence i s such t hat a r easonabl e j ur y

coul d r et ur n a ver di ct f or t he non- movi ng par t y. " Ander son v.

Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 248 ( 1986) .

The Cour t emphasi zes t hat t he mer e ar gued exi st ence of a

f act ual di sput e does not def eat an ot her wi se pr oper l y suppor t ed

mot i on. See i d. Ther ef or e, "[ i ] f t he evi dence i s mer el y

5 Pl ai nt i f f s have seemi ngl y abandoned t hei r Ful l Fai t h andCr edi t Cl ause cl ai m.

4


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

8/35

col or abl e, or i s not si gni f i cant l y pr obat i ve, " summar y j udgment i s

appr opr i ate. I d. at 249- 50 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Summar y j udgment

i s al so pr oper i f t he par t y opposi ng t he mot i on f ai l s t o est abl i sh

an essent i al el ement of hi s case. See Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t ,

477 U. S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1986) . I n t hi s regar d, t he non- movi ng par t y

must do more t han si mpl y deny t he al l egat i ons r ai sed by t he movi ng

par t y. See Donaghey v. Ocean Dr i l l i ng & Expl or at i on Co. , 974 F. 2d

646, 649 ( 5t h Ci r . 1992) . Rather , he must come f orward wi t h

compet ent evi dence, such as af f i davi t s or deposi t i ons, t o but t r ess

hi s cl ai ms. I d. Fi nal l y, i n eval uat i ng t he summar y j udgment

mot i on, t he Cour t must r ead t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e

t o t he non- movi ng par t y. Ander son, 477 U. S. at 255.

Thi s nat i onal samesex mar r i age st r uggl e ani mat es a cl ash

bet ween convi ct i ons r egar di ng t he val ue of st at e deci si ons r eached

by way of t he democrat i c pr ocess as cont r ast ed wi t h personal ,

genui ne, and si ncer e l i f est yl e choi ces recogni t i on. The def endant s

mai nt ai n t hat mar r i age i s a l egi t i mat e concer n of st at e l aw and

pol i cy. That i t may be r i ght l y r egul at ed because of what f or

cent ur i es has been under st ood t o be i t s r ol e. Not so say

pl ai nt i f f s, who vi gor ousl y submi t i f t wo peopl e wi sh t o ent er i nt o

a bond of commi t ment and care and have that bond r ecogni zed by l aw

as a mar r i age, t hey shoul d be f r ee to do so, and t hei r choi ce

shoul d be recogni zed by l aw as a mar r i age; never mi nd the hi st or i c

aut hor i t y of t he st at e or t he democr at i c pr ocess. These ar e

5


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

9/35

ear nest and t hought f ul di sput es, but t hey have become soci et y' s

l at est shor t f use. One may be f i r ml y r esol ved i n f avor of samesex

marr i age, others may be j ust as determi ned t hat marr i age i s bet ween

a man and a woman. The chal l enge i s how and wher e best t o r esol ve

t hese conf l i ct i ng not i ons about what i s mar r i age and what i nf l uence

shoul d t he U. S. Supr eme Cour t deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Wi ndsor

have? See 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( 2013) .

I I .

A.

The Cour t f i r st t akes up t he most hef t y const i t ut i onal i ssue:

Equal Prot ect i on. The Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Const i t ut i on

commands t hat no st ate shal l deny t o any person wi t hi n i t s

j ur i sdi ct i on t he equal prot ect i on of t he l aws. U. S. Const . amend.

XI V, 1. The Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause. . . essent i al l y di r ect s that

al l per sons si mi l ar l y si t uat ed be t r eat ed al i ke. St onebur ner v.

Sec' y of t he Ar my, 152 F. 3d 485, 491 ( 5t h Ci r . 1998) ( ci t i ng Ci t y of

Cl ebur ne, Tex. v. Cl ebur ne Li vi ng Ct r . , 473 U. S. 432, 440 ( 1985) ) .

However , i f a l aw nei t her bur dens a f undament al r i ght nor t ar get s

a suspect cl ass, t he Supr eme Cour t has hel d, t he l egi sl at i ve

cl assi f i cat i on [ wi l l sur vi ve] so l ong as i t bear s a r at i onal

r el at i on t o some l egi t i mat e end. Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620,

631 ( 1996) ( ci t i ngHel l er v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319- 20 ( 1993) ) ; Ci t y

of Cl ebur ne, 473 U. S. at 440 ( The gener al r ul e i s t hat l egi sl at i on

i s pr esumed t o be val i d and wi l l be sust ai ned i f t he cl assi f i cat i on

6


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

10/35

dr awn by t he st at ut e i s r at i onal l y r el at ed t o a l egi t i mat e st at e

i nt er est . ) . I n t he Equal Pr ot ect i on j oust , a cour t ' s st andar d of

r evi ew i s cent r al t o t hi s anal ysi s. At pl ay ar e t hr ee speci al i zed

l i nes of t hought : r at i onal basi s, i nt er medi at e scrut i ny, and

hei ght ened scrut i ny. Rat i onal basi s i s t he l east aust er e;

hei ght ened scr ut i ny t he most arduous.

When conduct i ng rat i onal basi s r evi ew, t he Supr eme Cour t has

i nst r uct ed t hat we wi l l not over t ur n such [ gover nment act i on]

unl ess t he var yi ng t r eat ment of di f f er ent gr oups or per sons i s so

unr el at ed t o t he achi evement of any combi nat i on of l egi t i mat e

pur poses t hat we can onl y concl ude t hat t he [ gover nment s] act i ons

wer e i r r at i onal . Ki mel v. Fl . Bd. of Regent s, 528 U. S. 62, 84

( 2000) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i on omi t t ed) . "I n t he or di nar y case, a l aw wi l l be sust ai ned

i f i t can be sai d t o advance a l egi t i mat e gover nment i nt er est , even

i f t he l aw seems unwi se or works t o the di sadvant age of a

par t i cul ar gr oup, or i f t he r at i onal e seems t enuous. " Romer , 517

U. S. at 632 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I f , however , hei ght ened scrut i ny,

t he most unf or gi vi ng, i s war r ant ed, t hen a l aw must be "necessar y

t o t he accompl i shment " of "a compel l i ng gover nment al i nt er est . "

Pal mor e v. Si dot i , 466 U. S. 429, 432 ( 1984) . 6

6

Al l f eder al cour t deci si ons post - Wi ndsor have st r i ckensame- sex mar r i age bans under al l t hr ee st andar ds. Bost i c v.Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S14298 ( 4t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ; Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14-5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733 ( 10t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen

7


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

11/35

Pl ai nt i f f s submi t t hat Loui si ana' s const i t ut i onal amendment

and Ci vi l Code ar t i cl e vi ol at e t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause by

pr ohi bi t i ng samesex mar r i age wi t hi n Loui si ana, and by decl i ni ng t o

r ecogni ze samesex mar r i ages t hat ar e l awf ul i n ot her st at es.

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he l aws ar e subj ect t o hei ght ened scrut i ny

anal ysi s because t hey di scr i mi nat e on t he basi s of sexual

or i ent at i on and gender . Def endant s count er t hat t he l aws t r i gger

r at i onal basi s r evi ew, whi ch i s sat i sf i ed by Loui si ana' s l egi t i mat e

i nt er est i n l i nki ng chi l dr en wi t h i nt act f ami l i es f or med by t hei r

bi ol ogi cal par ent s, and by ensur i ng t hat f undament al soci al change

occur s by soci al consensus t hr ough democr at i c pr ocesses. See

Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2697 ( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) ( "[ F] or i t

i s ent i r el y expected t hat st at e def i ni t i ons woul d ' var y, subj ect t o

v. Hebert , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10t h Ci r . J une25, 2014) ; Br enner v. Scot t , Nos. 14- 107 & 14- 138, 2014 U. S. Di st .

LEXI S 116684 ( N. D. Fl . Aug. 21, 2014) ; Bur ns v. Hi ckenl ooper , No.14- 1817, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 100894 ( D. Col o. J ul y 23, 2014) ;Love v. Beshear , No. 13- 750, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 89119 ( W. D. Ky.J ul y 1, 2014) ; Baski n v. Bogan, Nos. 14- 355, 14- 404 & 14- 406, 2014U. S. Di st . LEXI S 86114 ( S. D. I nd. J une 25, 2014) ; Wol f v. Wal ker ,No. 14- 64, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 77125 ( W. D. Wi s. J une 6, 2014) ;Whi t ewood v. Wol f , No. 13- 1861, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68771 ( M. D.Pa. May 20, 2014) ; Gei ger v. Ki t zhaber , Nos. 13- 1834 & 13- 2256,2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68171 ( D. Or . May 19, 2014) ; Lat t a v. Ot t er ,No. 13- 482, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 66417 ( D. I daho May 13, 2014) ;DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E. D. Mi ch. 2014) ; Tanco v.Hasl am, No. 13- 1159, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 33463 (M. D. Tenn. March

14, 2014) ; De Leon v. Per r y, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 ( W. D. Tex. 2014) ;Lee v. Or r , No. 13- 8719, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 21620 ( N. D. I l l .Feb. 21, 2014) ; McGee v. Col e, No. 13- 24068, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S10864 ( S. D. W. Va. J an. 29, 2014) . Cont r a Sevci k v. Sandoval , 911F. Supp. 2d 996 ( D. Nev. 2012) ( appl yi ng r at i onal basi s t o rej ect anEqual Protect i on chal l enge t o Nevada' s samesex marr i age ban) . SeeUni t ed St at es v. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( 2013) .

8


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

12/35

const i t ut i onal guar ant ees, f r omone St at e t o t he next . ' " ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ) . Def endant s poi nt out t hat over 30 st at es choose not t o

r ecogni ze samesex marr i ages, and some 20 st ates haven chosen t o

r ecogni ze samesex marr i ages i n f r ee and open debate t hr ough t he

democr at i c pr ocess. Bot h si des i nvoke t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on

i n Uni t ed St at es v. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( Kennedy, J . , maj or i t y

opi ni on) . But Wi ndsor does l i t t l e mor e t han gi ve bot h si des i n

t hi s case somet hi ng t o hope f or .

I n Wi ndsor , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat Sect i on 3 of t he

Federal Def ense of Marr i age Act ( DOMA) , whi ch def i ned marr i age as

a uni on bet ween one man and one woman onl y, vi ol at ed Equal

Protect i on and Due Process pr i nci pl es when appl i ed t o New Yor k

st at e l aw per mi t t i ng samesex mar r i age. I d. at 2693. Observi ng

"DOMA' s unusual devi at i on f r om t he usual t r adi t i on of r ecogni zi ng

and accept i ng st at e def i ni t i ons of mar r i age, " t he Cour t i nf er r ed

t hat Congr ess had act ed wi t h a di scr i mi nat or y pur pose. I d. The

Cour t r easoned, t o t hat poi nt , t hat "' [ d] i scri mi nat i ons of an

unusual char act er especi al l y suggest car ef ul consi der at i on t o

det er mi ne whet her t hey ar e obnoxi ous t o t he const i t ut i onal

pr ovi si on. ' " I d. at 2692 ( quot i ng Romer , 517 U. S. at 633) . 7

7 Wi ndsor , i n t he cont ext of t he i ssues pr esent ed t o t hi sCour t , i s uncl ear ( cont r ar y t o t he concl usi ons i n many r ecentf eder al cour t deci si ons) . I t i s by i t s own t er ms, l i mi t ed. I t s"opi ni on and i t s hol di ng ar e conf i ned t o t hose l awf ul mar r i ages. "133 S. Ct . at 2696. However , Wi ndsor al so ref erences an amorphousbut al l ur i ng "evol vi ng under st andi ng of t he meani ng of equal i t y. "I d. at 2693. Hence t hi s Cour t ' s unease t hat Wi ndsor mer el y of f er s

9


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

13/35

As t o st andar d of r evi ew, Wi ndsor st ar kl y avoi ds ment i on of

hei ght ened scrut i ny. Pl ai nt i f f s' ef f or t to equat e Wi ndsor ' s

el usi ve phr ase "car ef ul consi der at i on" wi t h i nt er medi at e or

hei ght ened scr ut i ny seems l i ke i nt el l ect ual anar chy. I n t he past ,

t he Supr eme Cour t consi der ed r at i onal basi s as f ul f i l l i ng t he

not i on of "car ef ul consi der at i on. " See Romer , 517 U. S. at 633- 35

( r equi r i ng "car ef ul consi der at i on" by appl yi ng a r at i onal basi s

st andard of r evi ew) . I f t he Supr eme Cour t meant t o appl y hei ght ened

scr ut i ny, i t woul d have sai d so. 8 Mor e i mpor t ant l y, t he Cour t onl y

r equi r ed "car ef ul consi der at i on" because of Congr ess' odd i nt r usi on

on what t he Cour t r epeat edl y emphasi zed was hi st or i c and essent i al

st at e aut hor i t y t o def i ne mar r i age. By t hat same l ogi c, no

addi t i onal or di f f er ent consi der at i on i s war r ant ed her e, wher e

Loui si ana i s act i ng squar el y wi t hi n t he scope of i t s t r adi t i onal

aut hor i t y, as under scor ed by J ust i ce Kennedy. See Wi ndsor , 133 S.

bi t s and pi eces of hope t o bot h si des. See al so i d. at 2696( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) ( "The Cour t does not have bef or e i t , andt he l ogi c of i t s opi ni on does not deci de, t he di st i nct quest i onwhet her t he St at es, i n t he exer ci se of t hei r ' hi st or i c andessent i al aut hor i t y t o def i ne t he mar i t al r el at i on, ' . . . may cont i nuet o ut i l i ze t he t r adi t i onal def i ni t i on of mar r i age. ") .

8 Thi s Cour t i s not per suaded by t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ' s deci si ont o t he cont r ar y i n Smi t hKl i ne Beecham Cor p. v. Abbot t Labs, 740

F. 3d 471 ( 9t h Ci r . 2014) . Even l ess expl i ci t regar di ng t heappr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew ar e t he spl i t deci si ons i n t he Tent hand Four t h Ci r cui t s. See Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169& 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298 ( 4t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ;Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733( 10t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen v. Heber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S.App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) .

10


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

14/35

Ct . at 2693. Al t hough bot h si des seek the saf e haven of Wi ndsor t o

t hei r si de of t hi s nat i onal st r uggl e, and i t i s cer t ai nl y wi t hout

di sput e t hat t he Supr eme Cour t cor r ect l y di scr edi t ed t he t ai nt ed

unconst i t ut i onal r esul t t hat DOMA had on democr at i cal l y debat ed and

t hen adopt ed New Yor k st ate l aw bl essi ng samesex marr i ages, t hi s

Cour t f i nds i t di f f i cul t t o mi ni mi ze, i ndeed, i gnor e, t he hi gh

cour t ' s power f ul r emi nder i n Wi ndsor :

The r ecogni t i on of ci vi l mar r i ages i s cent r al t o st at edomest i c r el at i ons l aw appl i cabl e t o i t s r esi dent s andci t i zens. See Wi l l i ams v. Nor t h Car ol i na, 317 U. S. 287,

298 (1942) ( "Each st at e as a sover ei gn has a r i ght f ul andl egi t i mat e concer n i n t he mar i t al st at us of per sonsdomi ci l ed wi t hi n i t s bor der s") . The def i ni t i on ofmar r i age i s t he f oundat i on of t he St at e' s br oaderaut hor i t y t o r egul at e t he subj ect of domest i c r el at i onswi t h r espect t o t he "[ p] r ot ect i on of of f spr i ng, pr oper t yi nt er est s, and t he enf or cement of mar i t alr esponsi bi l i t i es. " I bi d. "[ T] he st at es, at t he t i me oft he adopt i on of t he Const i t ut i on, possessed f ul l powerover t he subj ect of mar r i age and di vor ce. . . [ and] t heConst i t ut i on del egat ed no aut hor i t y t o t he Gover nment oft he Uni t ed St at es on t he subj ect of mar r i age and

di vor ce. " Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 525 ( 1906) ;see al so I n r e Bur r us, 136 U. S. 586, 593- 594 ( 1890) ( "Thewhol e subj ect of t he domest i c r el at i ons of husband andwi f e, par ent and chi l d, bel ongs t o t he l aws of t he St at esand not t o t he l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es" ) .

I d. at 2691 ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . J ust i ce Kennedy f ur t her

i nstr uct s:

The si gni f i cance of st at e r esponsi bi l i t i es f or t hedef i ni t i on and r egul at i on of mar r i age dat es t o t heNat i on' s begi nni ng; f or "when t he Const i t ut i on wasadopted t he common under st andi ng was t hat t he domest i cr el at i ons of husband and wi f e and par ent and chi l d wer emat t er s r eserved t o t he St at es. " Ohi o ex r el . Popovi civ. Agl er , 280 U. S. 379, 383- 384 ( 1930) . Marr i age l aws

11


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

15/35

var y i n some r espect s f r om St at e t o St at e. . . .

I d. And, f i nal l y, he emphasi zes why:

The r esponsi bi l i t y of t he Stat es f or t he r egul at i on ofdomest i c r el at i ons i s an i mpor t ant i ndi cat or of t hesubst ant i al soci et al i mpact t he St at e' s cl assi f i cat i onshave i n t he dai l y l i ves and cust oms of i t s peopl e.

I d. at 2693. Wi ndsor l eaves unchanged " t he concer ns f or s t at e

di ver si t y and sover ei gnt y. " See i d. at 2697 ( Rober t s, C. J . ,

di ssent i ng) .

But even apar t f r om Wi ndsor , pl ai nt i f f s seek t o j ust i f y t he

appl i cat i on of hei ght ened scr ut i ny because, t hey ar gue, Loui si ana' s

l aws and Const i t ut i on di scr i mi nat e based on sexual or i ent at i on.

They f ai l , however , t o r ecogni ze t hat nei t her t he Supreme Cour t nor

t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t has ever bef or e def i ned sexual or i ent at i on as a

pr ot ect ed cl ass, despi t e oppor t uni t i es t o do so. See, e. g. ,

Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( maj or i t y opi ni on) ; Romer , 517 U. S. 620;

J ohnson v. J ohnson, 385 F. 3d 503 ( 5t h Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Baski n

v. Bogan, Nos. 14- 355, 14- 404 & 14- 406, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S

86114, at *34- *35 ( S. D. I nd. J une 25, 2014) ( 7t h Ci r cui t pr ecedent

mandat es appl i cat i on of r at i onal basi s scr ut i ny t o t he i ssue of

sexual ori ent at i on di scr i mi nat i on) . Admi t t edl y, ot her f eder al

cour t s t hr oughout t he count r y have spoken as i f t hey wer e deci di ng

t he i ssue by di scover i ng, at best , uncl ear case model s on t he mor e

demandi ng st andar d of r evi ew. Or , i n t he name of r at i onal basi s,

12


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

16/35

t hey have at t i mes appl i ed t he more exact i ng r evi ew st andards.

Thi s Cour t woul d be mor e ci r cumspect . I n l i ght of st i l l - bi ndi ng

pr ecedent , t hi s Cour t decl i nes to f ashi on a new suspect cl ass. To

do so woul d di st or t pr ecedent and demean t he democr at i c pr ocess .

As J ust i ce Powel l st r essed and caut i oned i n Fur man v. Geor gi a i n a

r obust di ssent r egar di ng st at e- adopt ed capi t al puni shment :

Less measur abl e, but cer t ai nl y of no l ess si gni f i cance,i s t he shat t er i ng ef f ect t hi s col l ect i on of vi ews has ont he r oot pr i nci pl es of st ar e deci si s, f eder al i sm,j udi ci al r est r ai nt and- - most i mpor t ant l y- separ at i on ofpower s. . . . I n a democracy t he f i r st i ndi cat or of t he

publ i c' s at t i t ude must al ways be f ound i n t he l egi sl at i vej udgment s of t he peopl e' s chosen r epr esent at i ves.

408 U. S. 238, 417, 436- 37 ( 1972) . Of t he r ol e of t he cour t s i n

such mat t ers:

Fi r st , wher e as her e, t he l anguage of t he appl i cabl epr ovi si on pr ovi des great l eeway and wher e t he under l yi ngsoci al pol i ci es ar e f el t t o be of vi t al i mpor t ance, t het empt at i on t o read per sonal pr ef er ence i nt o the

Const i t ut i on i s under st andabl y gr eat . . . . But i t i s not t hebusi ness of t hi s Cour t t o pr onounce pol i cy. I t mustobser ve a f ast i di ous r egar d f or l i mi t at i ons on i t s ownpower , and t hi s pr ecl udes t he Cour t gi vi ng ef f ect t o i t sown not i ons of what i s wi se or pol i t i c.

I d. at 431, 433. And hi s emphat i c t r ust i n def er ence f or f r ee and

open debat e i n a democr acy r esonat es:

I t seems t o me t hat t he sweepi ng j udi ci al act i onunder t aken t oday r ef l ect s a basi c l ack of f ai t h andconf i dence i n t he democr at i c pr ocess.

I d. at 464- 65.

13


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

17/35

Pl ai nt i f f s al so add t hat t hey suf f er di scr i mi nat i on based on

gender . Pl ai nt i f f s, as do most ot her f eder al cour t s conf r ont ed

wi t h t hese i ssues, equat e t hi s case wi t h Lovi ng v. Vi r gi ni a, 388

U. S. 1, 8 ( 1967) , where the Supr eme Cour t r i ght l y condemned r aci al

di scr i mi nat i on even t hough Vi r gi ni a' s ant i mi scegenat i on mar r i age

l aws equal l y appl i ed t o bot h r aces. Pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument bet r ays

i t sel f . Hei ght ened scr ut i ny was war r ant ed i n Lovi ng because t he

Four t eent h Amendment expr essl y condemns r aci al di scr i mi nat i on as a

const i t ut i onal evi l ; i n shor t , t he Const i t ut i on speci f i cal l y bans

di f f er ent i at i on based on r ace. See i d. ; see al so Bi shop v. Smi t h,

Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733, at *145 ( 10t h

Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ( Kel l y, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n

par t ) ( "Okl ahoma' s ef f or t s t o r et ai n i t s def i ni t i on of mar r i age ar e

beni gn, and ver y much unl i ke r ace- based r est r i ct i ons on mar r i age

i nval i dat ed i n Lovi ng v. Vi r gi ni a. " (ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . Even

i gnor i ng t he obvi ous di f f er ence bet ween thi s case and Lovi ng, no

anal ogy can def eat t he pl ai n r eal i t y t hat Loui si ana' s l aws appl y

evenhandedl y t o bot h gender s- - whet her bet ween t wo men or t wo women.

Same- sex mar r i age i s not r ecogni zed i n Loui si ana and i s r easonabl y

anchor ed t o t he democr at i c pr ocess. The Cour t i s t her ef or e

sat i sf i ed t hat r at i onal basi s appl i es. See al so Bost i c v.

Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S

14298, at *92 ( 4t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ( Ni emeyer , J . , di ssent i ng) .

14


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

18/35

B.

So, i s t her e even any r at i onal basi s f or Loui si ana' s

r esi st ance t o r ecogni ze samesex mar r i ages ent er ed i nt o i n ot her

st at es, or t o aut hor i ze samesex mar r i ages i n Loui si ana?

Pl ai nt i f f s cont end not , and concl ude t hat Loui si ana' s l aws and

Const i t ut i on can onl y be suppor t ed by a hat ef ul ani mus. Def endant s

r ej oi n t hat t he l aws ser ve a cent r al st at e i nt er est of l i nki ng

chi l dr en t o an i nt act f ami l y f or med by t hei r bi ol ogi cal par ent s.

Of even more consequence, i n t hi s Cour t ' s j udgment , def endant s

asser t a l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est i n saf eguar di ng t hat f undament al

soci al change, i n t hi s i nst ance, i s bet t er cul t i vat ed t hr ough

democr at i c consensus. Thi s Cour t agr ees. 9

9 The Cour t acknowl edges t hat i t s deci si on r uns count er t oal l but t wo ot her f eder al cour t deci si ons. See Mer r i t t v. At t or neyGen. , No. 13- 215, 2013 WL 6044329 ( M. D. La. Nov. 14, 2013) ; Sevci kv. Sandoval , 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 ( D. Nev. 2012) . But see Bost i c v.

Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S14298 ( 4t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ; Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14-5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733 (10t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chenv. Hebert , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10t h Ci r . J une25, 2014) ; Br enner v. Scot t , Nos. 14- 107 & 14- 138, 2014 U. S. Di st .LEXI S 116684 ( N. D. Fl . Aug. 21, 2014) ; Bur ns v. Hi ckenl ooper , No.14- 1817, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 100894 ( D. Col o. J ul y 23, 2014) ;Love v. Beshear , No. 13- 750, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 89119 ( W. D. Ky.J ul y 1, 2014) ; Baski n v. Bogan, Nos. 14- 355, 14- 404 & 14- 406, 2014U. S. Di st . LEXI S 86114 ( S. D. I nd. J une 25, 2014) ; Wol f v. Wal ker ,No. 14- 64, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 77125 ( W. D. Wi s. J une 6, 2014) ;Whi t ewood v. Wol f , No. 13- 1861, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68771 ( M. D.

Pa. May 20, 2014) ; Gei ger v. Ki t zhaber , Nos. 13- 1834 & 13- 2256,2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68171 ( D. Or . May 19, 2014) ; Lat t a v. Ot t er ,No. 13- 482, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 66417 ( D. I daho May 13, 2014) ;DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E. D. Mi ch. 2014) ; Tanco v.Hasl am, No. 13- 1159, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 33463 (M. D. Tenn. March14, 2014) ; De Leon v. Per r y, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 ( W. D. Tex. 2014) ;Lee v. Or r , No. 13- 8719, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 21620 ( N. D. I l l .

15


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

19/35

8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

20/35

Sevci k v. Sandoval , 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1014 ( D. Nev. 2012) .

( Shor t l y bef or e Wi ndsor , t he di st r i ct cour t i n Sevci k adopt ed

ar gument s by Nevada t hat cl osel y mi r r or Loui si ana' s submi ssi ons) .

The Court al so hesi t at es wi t h t he not i on t hat t hi s st at e' s

choi ce coul d onl y be i nspi r ed by hat e and i nt ol er ance. Loui si ana

unquest i onabl y respect ed "a st at ewi de del i ber at i ve pr ocess t hat

al l owed i t s ci t i zens t o di scuss and wei gh ar gument s f or and agai nst

samesex mar r i age. " See Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2689. Al l si des

f or and agai nst gr appl ed wi t h t hi s sol emn i ssue. The Cour t

decl i nes t o assi gn an i l l i ci t mot i ve on t he basi s of t hi s r ecor d,

as have al so two f eder al appel l at e j udges as wel l . 11

Wi ndsor r epeat edl y and emphat i cal l y reaf f i r med t he

11 I n hi s concur r ence i n t he r ecent case of Bi shop v. Smi t h,Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733, *93- *133 (10t h

Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) , J udge Hol mes al so decl i ned t o agr ee t hat st at e

l aws l i mi t i ng samesex mar r i age suf f er f r om unconst i t ut i onalani mus. J udge Hol mes, i n a ver y car ef ul opi ni on, expl ai ned t hat af i ndi ng of ani mus gener al l y requi r es some st r uct ur al aber r at i on i nt he l aw at i ssue, l i ke t he i mposi t i on of wi de- r angi ng and noveldepr i vat i ons upon t he di sf avor ed gr oup or devi at i on f r om t hehi st or i cal t er r i t or y of t he sover ei gn si mpl y t o el i mi nat epr i vi l eges that t he di sf avor ed gr oup mi ght ot her wi se enj oy. I d. at*106. J udge Hol mes of f ered Romer as an exampl e of t he f ormer , andWi ndsor of t he l at t er , but di st i ngui shed t he samesex mar r i age bancases because of t he st ar k absence of any st r uct ur al i r r egul ar i t y.I d. at *133. J udge Hol mes r easoned t hat Okl ahoma' s pr ohi bi t i on wasnei t her as f ar r eachi ng as t he amendment i n Romer nor a depar t ur e

f r om t r adi t i onal sover ei gn r ol es l i ke DOMA was i n Wi ndsor . I d.Thi s Cour t agrees ent i r el y wi t h J udge Hol mes on t hi s poi nt andconcl udes the ani mus doct r i ne i s i nappl i cabl e her e. To r each acont r ar y resul t , i t woul d be necessar y t o "st r et ch t o accommodat echangi ng soci et al nor ms. " See Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167,14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *43 (4t h Ci r . J ul y28, 2014) .

17


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

21/35

l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl e t hat t he aut hor i t y t o r egul at e t he subj ect

of domest i c rel at i ons bel ongs t o t he st at es, subj ect t o i ndi st i nct

f ut ur e const i t ut i onal guar ant ees t hat i n Wi ndsor wer e, by i t s

expr essed l i mi t s, l ef t open and r at her i nexact . I d. at 2691, 2692,

2693, 2696. Al t hough opi ni ons about samesex marr i age wi l l

under st andabl y var y among t he st ates, and ot her st at es i n f r ee and

open debat e wi l l and have chosen di f f er ent l y, t hat does not mandat e

t hat Loui si ana has over st epped i t s sover ei gn aut hor i t y. See i d. at

2692. Because t hi s Cour t concl udes t hat Loui si ana' s l aws ar e

r at i onal l y r el at ed t o i t s l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est s, as def endant s

pl ausi bl y f ocus, t hey do not of f end pl ai nt i f f s' r i ght s t o Equal

Pr ot ect i on. 12

C.

The par t i es al so seek summar y j udgment on Due Pr ocess Cl ause

gr ounds. The Four t eent h Amendment pr ohi bi t s a st ate f r om

depr i v[ i ng] any per son of l i f e, l i ber t y, or pr oper t y, wi t hout due

pr ocess of l aw. U. S. Const . amend. XI V, 1. Thi s pr ot ect i on has

been vi ewed as havi ng both pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve component s

when st at e act i on i s chal l enged. As t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t has

observed:

12 Thi s Cour t f i nds common cause wi t h J ust i ce Powel l ' scaut i onar y i nj unct i on i n Fur man v. Geor gi a about j udi ci al act i ont hat " r ef l ect s a basi c l ack of f ai t h and conf i dence i n t hedemocr at i c pr ocess. " 408 U. S. at 464- 65.

18


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

22/35

Procedur al due pr ocess pr omotes f ai r ness i n governmentdeci si ons by r equi r i ng t he gover nment t o f ol l owappr opr i at e pr ocedur es when i t s agent s deci de t o depr i veany per son of l i f e, l i ber t y, or pr oper t y. Dani el s v.Wi l l i ams, 474 U. S. 327, 331 ( 1986) . Subst ant i ve duepr ocess, by bar r i ng cer t ai n gover nment act i ons

r egar dl ess of t he f ai r ness of t he pr ocedur es used t oi mpl ement t hem, [ ] serves t o pr event government powerf r om bei ng used f or pur poses of oppr essi on. I d.

The J ohn Cor p. v. The Ci t y of Houst on, 214 F. 3d 573, 577 ( 5t h Ci r .

2000) ( addi t i onal ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

The subst ant i ve component of due process, whi ch pl ai nt i f f s

count on her e, pr ot ect s f undament al r i ght s t hat ar e so i mpl i ci t i nt he concept of or der ed l i ber t y t hat nei t her l i ber t y nor j ust i ce

woul d exi st i f t hey wer e sacr i f i ced. Pal ko v. Connect i cut , 302

U. S. 319, 325- 36 ( 1937) . Fundament al r i ght s prot ect ed by

subst ant i ve due pr ocess ar e pr ot ect ed f r om cer t ai n st at e act i ons

r egar dl ess of what pr ocedur es t he st at e uses. Doe v. Moor e, 410

F. 3d 1337, 1343 (11t h

Ci r . 2005) ( ci t i ng t he pr omi nent deci si on i n

Washi ngt on v. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. 702, 721 ( 1997) ) . And such

f undament al r i ght s have been hel d t o i ncl ude t he r i ght s t o mar r y,

t o have chi l dr en, t o di r ect t he educat i on and upbr i ngi ng of one s

chi l dr en, t o mar i t al pr i vacy, t o use cont r acept i on, t o bodi l y

i nt egr i t y, and t o abor t i on. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 720

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The Supr eme Cour t has, however , al ways been

r el uct ant t o expand the concept of subst ant i ve due pr ocess because

gui depost s f or r esponsi bl e deci si onmaki ng i n t hi s unchar t er ed ar ea

ar e scarce and open- ended. I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

19


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

23/35

8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

24/35

descri pt i on, " whi ch, her e, means t hat pl ai nt i f f s must speci f i cal l y

asser t a f undament al r i ght t o samesex marr i age. 13

No aut hor i t y di ct at es, and pl ai nt i f f s do not cont end, t hat

samesex mar r i age i s anchor ed t o hi st or y or t r adi t i on. 14 The

concept of samesex mar r i age i s " a new per spect i ve, a new i nsi ght , "

13 The cases i nvoked by pl ai nt i f f s, i ncl udi ng Tur ner v.Saf el y, 482 U. S. 78 ( 1987) , Zabl ocki v. Redhai l , 434 U. S. 374( 1978) , and Lovi ng, 388 U. S. 1, do not r el i eve t hem of t hei robl i gat i on t o car ef ul l y descr i be t he f undament al r i ght at i ssueher e. Al t hough a pr ocessi on of f eder al cour t s accept ed si mi l ar

ar gument s, t hat t r i ni t y of Supr eme Cour t cases does not suppor t t hepr oposi t i on t hat mar r i age i s a f undament al r i ght guar ant eed t oever yone wi t hout l i mi t at i on; i ndeed, each case i nvol ved mar r i agesbet ween one man and one woman. See Zabl ocki , 434 U. S. at 386 ( "Byaf f i r mi ng t he f undament al char act er of t he r i ght t o mar r y, we donot mean t o suggest t hat ever y st at e r egul at i on whi ch r el at es i nany way t o the i nci dent s of or pr er equi si t es f or mar r i age must besubj ected t o st r i ct scr ut i ny. ") . Def endant s apt l y not e t hat i tcoul d not be mai nt ai ned t hat t he st at es vi ol at e a gener alf undament al r i ght t o marr y when t hey r est r i ct marr i ages betweenmi nor s, f i r st cousi ns, or mor e than t wo peopl e, f or exampl e. I n acase such as t hi s, t he pl ai nt i f f s necessar i l y asser t an i nt er est

apar t f r omand beyond t he hi st or i c and t r adi t i onal r i ght t o mar r y.Even pl ai nt i f f s admi t t hat such uni ons woul d have unaccept abl e"si gni f i cant soci et al har ms. "

14

Def endant s poi nt t o Baker v. Nel son, 409 U. S. 810 (1972) ,i n suppor t of t he pr oposi t i on t hat t her e i s no Supr eme Cour tpr ecedent f or a f undament al r i ght t o marr y someone of t he same sex.I n Baker v. Nel son, t he Supr eme Cour t summari l y rej ected " f or wantof a subst ant i al f eder al quest i on" t he cl ai mt hat t he Const i t ut i onr equi r es a st at e t o aut hor i ze samesex mar r i age. Def endant s poi ntout t hat Baker was deci ded f i ve year s af t er Lovi ng. Unl i ke t hedef endant s i n many of t he other samesex marr i age cases bef ore

ot her f eder al cour t s, however , def endant s her e do not cont end t hatBaker f or ecl oses thi s Cour t ' s r evi ew or mandat es t he di sposi t i on oft hi s case. See al so Mer r i t t v. At t or ney Gen. , No. 13- 215, 2013 WL6044329, at *2 ( M. D. La. Nov. 14, 2013) ( ci t i ng Baker f or t hepr oposi t i on t hat t he Const i t ut i on does not r equi r e st at es t o per mi tsame- sex mar r i age) . The Cour t need not ent er t he di f f er i ngcont ent i ons about t he vi abi l i t y of Baker v. Nel son.

21


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

25/35

nonexi st ent and even i nconcei vabl e unt i l ver y r ecent l y. Wi ndsor ,

133 S. Ct . at 2689. Many st at es have democr at i cal l y chosen t o

r ecogni ze samesex mar r i age. But unt i l r ecent year s, i t had no

pl ace at al l i n t hi s nat i on' s hi st or y and t r adi t i on. Publ i c

at t i t ude mi ght be becomi ng more di ver se, but any r i ght t o samesex

marr i age i s not yet so ent r enched as t o be f undament al . See

Mal agon, 462 F. 3d at 505. There i s si mpl y no f undament al r i ght ,

hi st or i cal l y or t r adi t i onal l y, t o samesex mar r i age. 15

Wi t h no f undament al r i ght at st ake, 16 t he Cour t agai n r evi ews

under r at i onal basi s. The Cour t has al r eady hel d t hat Loui si ana' s

15 Thi s Cour t i s not t he f i r st t o r each t hi s concl usi on, evenpost - Wi ndsor . See Love v. Beshear , No. 13- 750, 2014 U. S. Di st .LEXI S 89119, at *18 ( W. D. Ky. J ul y 1, 2014) ( " I f t he i nqui r y her e i svi ewed as a cont our s- of - t he- r i ght quest i on, hol di ng t hat t hef undament al r i ght t o mar r y encompasses samesex mar r i age woul d bea dr amat i c st ep t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has not yet i ndi cated awi l l i ngness t o t ake. ") ; see al so Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167,14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *92 (4t h Ci r . J ul y

28, 2014) ( Ni emeyer , J . , di ssent i ng) ( "At bot t om, t he f undament alr i ght t o mar r i age does not i ncl ude a r i ght t o samesex mar r i age. " ) ;Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S13733, *147- *148 ( 10t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ( Kel l y J . , concur r i ng i npar t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) ( "Removi ng gender compl ement ar i t y f r omt he hi st or i cal def i ni t i on of mar r i age i s si mpl y cont r ar y t o t hecaref ul anal ysi s prescr i bed by the Supr eme Cour t when i t comes t osubst ant i ve due pr ocess. " ) .

16 Pl ai nt i f f s al so summar i l y al l ege vi ol at i ons of t hei rf undament al r i ght s t o r emai n mar r i ed and t o par ent al aut hor i t y, butt hese cl ai ms f ai l f or t he same r eason. The Cour t not es, however ,

t hat ot her f eder al di st r i ct cour t opi ni ons post - Wi ndsor havef avor ed samesex mar r i ages under al l st andar ds of r evi ew. See,e. g. , Ki t chen v. Her ber t , No. 13- 217, 2013 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 179331( D. Ut ah Dec. 20, 2013) , af f ' d, No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S11935 (10t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) ; Wol f v. Wal ker , No. 14- 64, 2014U. S. Di st . LEXI S 77125 ( W. D. Wi s. J une 6, 2014) ; Whi t ewood v. Wol f ,13- 1861, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68771 ( M. D. Pa. May 20, 2014) .

22


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

26/35

l aw and Const i t ut i on sur vi ve under a r at i onal basi s r evi ew.

Al t hough pl ai nt i f f s mai nt ai n t hat t he l aws ar e i mpr oper l y gr ounded

onl y i n t r adi t i on and mor al obj ect i on, def endant s of f er a credi bl e,

and convi nci ng, r at i onal basi s t o t he cont r ar y. See Hel l er v. Doe,

509 U. S. 312, 319- 20 ( 1993) .

Al t hough pl ai nt i f f s woul d f ashi on a moder n const i t ut i onal

const r uct and pl ace si de by si de t hi s case t o Lawr ence v. Texas,

539 U. S. 558 (2003) , i n whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat Texas'

ant i sodomy st at ut e vi ol at ed subst ant i ve due pr ocess, t he Cour t i n

Lawr ence speci f i cal l y f ound t hat t he Texas l aw f ur t her ed no

l egi t i mat e stat e i nt er est suf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y i t s i nt r usi on on

t he r i ght t o pr i vacy. I d. at 578. Thi s Cour t i s per suaded t hat

Loui si ana has a l egi t i mat e i nt er est . . . whet her obsol et e i n t he

opi ni on of some, or not , i n t he opi ni on of ot her s. . . i n l i nki ng

chi l dr en t o an i nt act f ami l y f or med by thei r t wo bi ol ogi cal

par ent s, as speci f i cal l y under scor ed by J ust i ce Kennedy i n Wi ndsor .

And t he Cour t i s not per suaded t hat Lawr ence, a r i ght t o pr i vacy

model , pr ovi des any suppor t f or a subst ant i ve due pr ocess l i ber t y

t o samesex mar r i age. The Cour t f i nds i t hel pf ul t o cal l at t ent i on

t hat Lawr ence, by i t s own t er ms, di d "not i nvol ve whet her t he

gover nment must gi ve f or mal r ecogni t i on t o any rel at i onshi p t hat

homosexual per sons seek t o ent er . " I d. ; see al so i d. at 585 ( O'

Connor , J . , concur r i ng) ( "Texas cannot asser t any l egi t i mat e st at e

i nt er est her e, such as nat i onal secur i t y or pr eser vi ng t he

23


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

27/35

t r adi t i onal i nst i t ut i on of mar r i age. Unl i ke t he mor al di sappr oval

of samesex rel at i ons- t he asser t ed i nt er est i n t hi s case- ot her

r easons exi st t o pr omot e t he i nst i t ut i on of mar r i age beyond mer e

moral di sappr oval of an excl uded gr oup. " ( emphasi s added) ) .

D.

Bot h si des al so seek summar y j udgment on pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m

t hat Loui si ana Depar t ment of Revenue I nf or mat i on Bul l et i n No. 13-

024 vi ol at es t hei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght s. The Fi r st Amendment t o

t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on decl ar es t hat "Congr ess shal l make

no l aw. . . abr i dgi ng t he f r eedom of speech. " U. S. Const . amend. I .

"As a general mat t er , t he Fi r st Amendment means t hat government has

no power t o r est r i ct expr essi on because of i t s message, i t s i deas,

i t s subj ect mat t er , or i t s cont ent . " Uni t ed St at es v. St evens, 559

U. S. 460, 468 ( 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . And t he Fi r st Amendment al so means that t he government

cannot compel a person t o speak or t o parr ot a f avored vi ewpoi nt .

Wool ey v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977) ( "We begi n wi t h t he

pr oposi t i on t hat t he r i ght of f r eedom of t hought pr ot ect ed by t he

Fi r st Amendment agai nst st at e act i on i ncl udes bot h t he r i ght t o

speak f r eel y and t he r i ght t o r ef r ai n f r om speaki ng at al l . ") ; W.

Va. St at e Bd. of Educ. v. Bar net t e, 319 U. S. 624, 642 ( 1943) ( " I f

t her e i s any f i xed st ar i n our const i t ut i onal const el l at i on, i t i s

t hat no of f i ci al , hi gh or pet t y, can pr escr i be what shal l be

or t hodox i n pol i t i cs, nat i onal i sm, r el i gi on or ot her mat t er s of

24


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

28/35

opi ni on or f or ce ci t i zens t o conf ess by wor d or act t hei r f ai t h

t her ei n. " ) . I n t he cont ext of compel l ed speech, cour t s must

di scer n whet her a l aw " r egul at es conduct , not speech" ; onl y

i nf r i ngement s of speech, and not conduct , warr ant Fi r st Amendment

pr ot ect i on. Rumsf el d v. For um f or Academi c & I nst . Ri ght s, 547

U. S. 47, 60 ( 2006) ( di st i ngui shi ng r egul at i on of what someone "must

do" f r om "what t hey may or may not say" ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) .

Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 r equi r es samesex coupl es who ar e l awf ul l y

mar r i ed i n ot her st at es t o never t hel ess descr i be t hat t hey ar e of

si ngl e st at us on t hei r Loui si ana st at e i ncome t ax r et ur ns.

Pl ai nt i f f s say t hat compel s speech. Def endant s answer t hat t he

t ar get ed bul l et i n mer el y pr escr i bes conduct . They add t hat t he

r equi r ed conduct i s necessary t o an essent i al gover nment f unct i on,

col l ecti ng st at e t axes. They st r ess hel pf ul l y t hat t he Fi f t h

Ci r cui t r ecent l y agr eed wi t h t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t t hat t he r equi r ed

di scl osur e of i nf or mat i on on a t ax f or m i s si mpl y not compel l ed

speech under t he Fi r st Amendment . See Uni t ed St ates v. Ar nol d, 740

F. 3d 1032, 1035 ( 5t h Ci r . 2014) ( "' Ther e i s no r i ght t o r ef r ai n f r om

speaki ng when essent i al oper at i ons of gover nment r equi r e i t f or t he

pr eser vat i on of an or der l y soci et y. . . . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Si ndel , 53 F. 3d 874, 878 ( 8t h Ci r . 1995) ) .

The Cour t i s sat i sf i ed t hat Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 does not

cont r avene t he Fi r st Amendment ; t hat t he di scl osur e r equi r ement

r egul at es conduct , not speech. See Rumsf el d, 547 U. S. at 60;

Ar nol d, 740 F. 3d at 1034- 35. Despi t e pl ai nt i f f s' cont ent i ons t o

25


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

29/35

t he cont r ar y, t he bul l et i n has not hi ng t o do wi t h f or ci ng

pl ai nt i f f s t o di scl ai m t hei r "deep spi r i t ual and emot i onal bel i ef

i n t he i nvi ol abi l i t y of t hei r mar r i ages, " but , r at her , i t s i mpl y

r equi r es pl ai nt i f f s t o pr ovi de t he gover nment wi t h i nf or mat i on

necessar y f or t he pur pose of st at e t ax col l ect i on. See Si ndel , 53

F. 3d at 878. Taki ng pl ai nt i f f s' argument t o i t s l ogi cal

concl usi on, any st at e pol i cy wi t h whi ch one di sagr ees coul d

const i t ut e compel l ed speech. The Cour t decl i nes to endor se t hat

shapel ess r esul t .

I I I .

Thi s Cour t has ar duousl y st udi ed t he vol l ey of nat i onal l y

or chest r at ed cour t r ul i ngs agai nst st at es whose vot er s chose i n

f r ee and open el ect i ons, whose l egi sl at ur es, af t er a r obust , even

f r act i ous debat e and exchange of compet i ng, vi gor ousl y di f f er i ng

vi ews, l i st ened t o t hei r ci t i zens r egar di ng t he har shl y di vi si ve

and passi onate i ssue on samesex marr i age. The f ederal cour t

deci si ons t hus f ar exempl i f y a pageant of empathy; deci si ons

i mpel l ed by a r esponse of i nnat e pat hos. Cour t s t hat , i n t he wor ds

of J ust i ce Scal i a i n a di f f er ent cont ext i n Bond v. Uni t ed St at es,

134 S. Ct . 2077, 2094 ( 2014) ( concur r i ng opi ni on) , appear t o have

assumed t he mant l e of a l egi sl at i ve body. I n f act J udge Ni emeyer

i n hi s "l i ngui st i c mani pul at i on" di ssent i n Bost i c v. Schaef er put s

i t even mor e candi dl y:

Thi s anal ysi s i s f undament al l y f l awed because i t f ai l s t ot ake i nt o account t hat t he "mar r i age" t hat has l ong beenr ecogni zed by t he Supr eme Cour t as a f undament al r i ght i s

26


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

30/35

8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

31/35

t he hopef ul chor us t hat t he t i de i s t ur ni ng seems ardent and i s an

ar guabl y popul ar , i ndeed, poi gnant , out come ( whet her or not

credi bl y const i t ut i onal l y dr i ven) . Per haps, i n t he wake of t oday' s

bl ur r y not i on of evol vi ng under st andi ng, t he r esul t i s or dai ned.

Per haps i n a new est abl i shed poi nt of vi ew, mar r i age wi l l be

r educed t o cont r act l aw, and, by cont r act , anyone wi l l be abl e t o

cl ai m mar r i age. Per haps t hat i s t he next f r ont i er , t he next phase

of some "evol vi ng under st andi ng of equal i t y, " wher e what i s

mar r i age wi l l be expl or ed. And as pl ai nt i f f s vi gor ousl y r emi nd,

t her e have been embat t l ed t i mes when t he f eder al j udi ci ar y pr oper l y

i nser t ed i t sel f t o cor r ect a wr ong i n our soci et y. But t hat i s an

i ncompl et e answer t o t oday' s soci al i ssue. When a f eder al cour t i s

obl i ged t o conf r ont a const i t ut i onal st r uggl e over what i s

mar r i age, a si ngul ar l y pi vot al i ssue, t he consequence of out comes,

i nt ended or ot her wi se, seems an equal l y compel l i ng part of t he

equat i on. I t seems unj ust t o i gnor e. And so, i nconveni ent

quest i ons per si st . For exampl e, must t he st at es per mi t or

r ecogni ze a mar r i age bet ween an aunt and ni ece? Aunt and nephew?

Br other / br other? Fat her and chi l d? May mi nors marr y? Must

marr i age be l i mi t ed t o onl y t wo peopl e? What about a t r ansgender

spouse? I s such a uni on same- gender or mal e- f emal e? Al l such

uni ons woul d undeni abl y be equal l y commi t t ed t o l ove and car i ng f or

one anot her , j ust l i ke t he pl ai nt i f f s. 19

19 I n t he wor ds of t he Four t h Ci r cui t : "Ci vi l mar r i age i s oneof t he cor ner st ones of our way of l i f e. I t al l ows i ndi vi dual s t o

28


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

32/35

Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel was unabl e t o answer such ki nds of

quest i ons; t he onl y hesi t ant r esponse gi ven was t hat such uni ons

woul d r esul t i n "si gni f i cant soci et al har ms" t hat t he st at es coul d

i ndeed r egul at e. But not same- gender uni ons. Thi s Cour t i s

power l ess t o be i ndi f f erent t o t he unknown and possi bl y i mpr udent

consequences of such a deci si on. A deci si on f or whi ch t her e

r emai ns t he arena of democr at i c debate. Fr ee and open and pr obi ng

debat e. I ndeed, f r act i ous debat e. The Cour t r emai ns dr awn t o t he

f or cef ul and pr ophet i c ci r cumspect i on expr essed by J ust i ce Powel l ,

and t ur ns t he spot l i ght agai n not onl y on hi s di ssent i n Fur man v.

Geor gi a, 408 U. S. 238, 414 ( 1972) , but al so t o J udge Kel l y i n hi s

di ssent i n t he r ecent Tent h Ci r cui t deci si on i n Ki t chen v. Her ber t ,

No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) .

Thei r wor ds l ead t hi s Cour t t oday and ought not be sl i ght ed:

[ W] her e, as her e, t he l anguage of t he appl i cabl e

pr ovi si on pr ovi des great l eeway and wher e t he under l yi ngsoci al pol i ci es ar e f el t t o be of vi t al i mpor t ance, t het empt at i on t o read per sonal pr ef er ence i nt o theConst i t ut i on i s under st andabl y gr eat . . . . But i t i s not t hebusi ness of t hi s Cour t t o pr onounce pol i cy. I t mustobser ve a f ast i di ous r egar d f or l i mi t at i ons on i t s ownpower , and t hi s pr ecl udes t he Cour t ' s gi vi ng ef f ect t oi t s own not i ons of what i s wi se or pol i t i c.

Fur man, 408 U. S. at 431, 433.

cel ebr at e and publ i cl y decl ar e t hei r i nt ent i ons t o f or m l i f el ongpar t ner shi ps, whi ch pr ovi de unpar al l el ed i nt i macy, compani onshi p,emot i onal suppor t , and secur i t y. " Bost i c, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S14298, at *67. But see i d. at *86- *87 ( Ni emeyer , J . ,di ssent i ng) ( "To now def i ne the pr evi ousl y recogni zed f undament alr i ght t o ' mar r i age' as a concept t hat i ncl udes t he new not i on of' samesex mar r i age' amount s t o a di ct i onar y j ur i spr udence, whi chdef i nes t er ms as conveni ent t o at t ai n an end. " ) .

29


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

33/35

[ O] n t hi s i ssue we shoul d def er . To be sur e, t heconst ant r ef r ai n i n t hese cases has been t hat t he St at es'j ust i f i cat i ons ar e not advanced by excl udi ng same- gendercoupl es f r ommar r i age. But t hat i s a mat t er of opi ni on;any "i mpr ovement " on t he cl assi f i cat i on shoul d be l ef t t ot he st at e pol i t i cal pr ocess.

Ki t chen, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935, at *146. And, of we j udges as

phi l osopher - ki ngs:

Though t he Pl ai nt i f f s woul d wei gh t he i nter est s of t heSt at e di f f er ent l y and di scount t he pr ocr eat i on, chi l d-r ear i ng, and caut i on r at i onal es, t hat pr er ogat i ve bel ongst o t he el ect or at e and t hei r r epr esent at i ves. . . . We shoul dr esi st t he t empt at i on to become phi l osopher - ki ngs,i mposi ng our vi ews under t he gui se of const i t ut i onali nt er pr et at i on of t he Four t eent h Amendment .

I d. at *149- *150. Heedi ng t hose caut i ons, i t i s not f or t hi s Cour t

t o r esol ve t he wi sdomof samesex marr i age. 20 The nat i on i s wi t ness

20 Wi ndsor of f er s no obst acl e t o t hi s poi nt , whi ch t he Supr emeCour t even mor e r ecent l y r eaf f i r med i n Schuet t e v. Coal i t i on t oDef end Af f i r mat i ve Act i on, 134 S. Ct . 1623 ( 2014) . I n Schuet t e,t he Cour t hel d that a Mi chi gan const i t ut i onal amendment pr event i ngt he use of r ace- based pr ef er ences as par t of t he admi ssi ons process

f or st at e uni ver si t i es di d not vi ol at e t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl auseof t he Four t eent h Amendment . J ust i ce Kennedy, t he aut hor ofWi ndsor , wr i t i ng f or t he Cour t , emphasi zed t hat t he quest i on bef or et he Cour t was " not t he per mi ssi bi l i t y of r ace- consci ous admi ssi onspol i ci es under t he Const i t ut i on but whet her , and i n what manner ,vot er s i n t he St at es may choose t o pr ohi bi t consi der at i on of r aci alpr ef er ences i n gover nment al deci si ons. " I d. at 1630. I n ot herwords, t he quest i on was whet her " t he cour t s [ may or ] may notdi sempower t he vot er s f r omchoosi ng whi ch pat h t o f ol l ow. " I d. at1635. The Supr eme Cour t hel d not . I t r easoned: "Thi s case i s notabout how t he debat e about r aci al pr ef er ences shoul d be resol ved.I t i s about who may r esol ve i t . Ther e i s no aut hor i t y i n t he

Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St at es or i n t hi s Cour t ' s pr ecedent s f ort he J udi ci ar y t o set asi de Mi chi gan l aws t hat commi t t hi s pol i cydet er mi nat i on t o t he vot er s. " I d. at 1638. Thi s case shar esst r i ki ng si mi l ar i t i es wi t h Schuet t e. J ust as i n Schuet t e, t hi s casei nvol ves "[ d] el i ber at i ve debat e on sensi t i ve i ssues [ t hat ] al l t ooof t en may shade i nt o r ancor . " I d. And so j ust l i ke t he Supr emeCour t ver y recent l y hel d, t hi s Cour t agr ees " t hat does not j ust i f yr emovi ng cer t ai n cour t - det er mi ned i ssues f r om t he vot er s' r each.

30


8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

34/35

8/11/2019 3:14-cv-01253 #50

35/35

def i ni t i on of mar r i age as bet ween one man and one woman and t he

l i mi t at i on on r ecogni t i on of samesex mar r i ages per mi t t ed by l aw i n

ot her st at es f ound i n Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana

Const i t ut i on and ar t i cl e 3520( B) of t he Loui si ana Ci vi l Code do not

i nf r i nge t he guar ant ees of t he Equal Prot ect i on and Due Process

Cl auses of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. The r ecor d r eveal s no

mat er i al di sput e: t he def endant s have shown t hat Loui si ana' s

deci si on t o nei t her per mi t nor r ecogni ze samesex mar r i age, f or med

i n t he ar ena of t he democr at i c pr ocess, i s suppor t ed by a r at i onal

basi s. 21 The Cour t f ur t her f i nds t hat pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o

est abl i sh a genui ne di sput e r egar di ng a Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i on

on t hi s r ecor d. Accor di ngl y, pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or summar y

j udgment i s DENI ED and def endant s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment i s

GRANTED.

New Or l eans, Loui si ana, Sept ember 3, 2014.

______________________________ MARTI N L. C. FELDMAN

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE

21 The publ i c cont r adi ct i ons and heat ed di sput es among t hecommuni t y of soci al sci ent i st s, cl er gy, pol i t i ci ans, and t hi nker sabout what i s marr i age conf i r ms and cl ear l y sends t he message t hatt he st at e has a l egi t i mat e i nt er est , a r at i onal basi s, i naddr essi ng t he meani ng of mar r i age.


Documents

3:14-cv-01253 #50