Amicus Curiae Brief — Obergefell v. Hodges

Supreme Court brief2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574

Bu The

Supreme Court of the Anited

JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., and

BRITTANI HENRY, et al., Petitioners,

Vv.

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al., Respondents.

VALERIA TANCO, et al., Petitioners,

WILLIAM EDWARD “BILL” HASLAM,

GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, et al., Respondents.

APRIL DEBORR, et al., Petitioners,

Vv.

RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, et al., Respondents.

GREGORY BOURKE, et al., and

TIMOTHY LOVE, et al., Petitioners,

STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, et al., Respondents.

— o

On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States

Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA

LAW SCHOOL SEXUALITY AND GENDER

LAW CLINIC IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

HENRY P. MONAGHAN SUZANNE B. GOLDBERG

435 West 116th Street Columbia Law School

New York, NY 10027 435 West 116th Street

(212) 854-2644 New York, New York 10027

monaghan@law.columbia.edu (212) 854-0411

Of Counsel sgoldb1@law.columbia.edu

Counsel of Record for

Amicus Curiae

COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6864

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE........................- 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................ccccceeseeees 3

(TLE FETE aaa Es aaa Oe NO 4

I. States Generally Allow Freedom of Choice

IT.

in Marriage, Consistent with the Due Pro-

cess Clause, but for Their Selective Exclu-

sion of Same-Sex Couples

ee Cee eee eee eee ee eee ee ee eee

The Marriage-Ban States Impose Few

Limits on a Person’s Choice of Spouse,

Other Than the Choice of a Same-Sex

Spouse at Issue Here

Also Consistent with Due Process,

States Do Not Prescribe Gender Roles

for Married Couples

States Further Protect Marital Choice

by Limiting Annulment and Recogniz-

ing Marriages Even Where Spouses

Had Dubious Motives

Eligibility for Marriage in the United

States Does Not Hinge on Spouses Be-

ing Able to Procreate Biologically

The Marriage Restrictions at Issue In-

fringe Same-Sex Couples’ Constitutionally

Protected Liberty Interests in Family In-

tegrity and Association

TABLE OF CONTENTS -— Continued

Page

Ill. The Due Process and Equal Protection

Guarantees Require Equal Access to Fun-

damental Rights, Including Autonomy in

Decisions about Childrearing, Intimacy,

aE 21

ID distin ticceieesinncinticciulerpenshanienientannicibestasneiianiiiakadinn 24

ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Adler v. Adler, 805 So. 2d 952 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

nnn IITITITIT secihenssietiuiieeinieapenbaisieeapeieieteailicin tintin 14

Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) ............ 1

Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014)......... 8

Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014)...... 1,8

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).................. 22

Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn.

i Ea al a Di 11

Brenner v. Armstrong, Nos. 14-14061, 14-14066

(11th Cir. filed Sept. 5, 2014).......0... eee. 1,15

Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D.

ea Ee Cree eee ee OD Ae 15

Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917)..............0..... 23

Campbell v. Campbell, 377 S.W. 93 (Ky. 1964).......... 11

Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678

ERENT rE EEE eee SEL eee Le 7

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632

Ie ceailaelaniataaa i a 7

Conde-Vidal v. Rius-Armendariz, No. 14-2184

CE Sy, SE ER BI, BID dececeniccccnccccccecectocssceccceccss 1

Coulter v. Hendricks, 918 S.W.2d 424 (Tenn. Ct.

IIT iaetanstineideibsidcibesnesinincendieeinsendeitebaisielinciaenclsdieitoraisania 14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

De Leon v. Abbott, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. ar-

I eee 1,9

De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D.

ia 8

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ........... 22

Hardesty v. Hardesty Ex’r, 34 S.W.2d 442 (Ky.

| Se cee EEL aek eon cs eee Nase eknt OSs eUL aPC 11

Hawkins v. Hawkins, 258 S.W. 962 (Ky. 1924).......... 14

Hodge v. Parks, 844 N.W.2d 189 (Mich. Ct. App.

SERRE AR en ep cetiy man aaa sen BRR ctsd ee NE AA Te ee 11

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)................ 7

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013)........... 2

In re Estate of Smallman, 398 S.W.3d 134

NN I ssssicuiiesidieeisicenateicaiaiiptisnalariastladiiaaien latinas 13

In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) .......... 2

In re Miller’s Estate, 214 N.W. 428 (Mich. 1927)....... 13

Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d

I kaa ialeariaaiiaaa 2

Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.

a a a a 8

Koebel v. Koebel, 176 N.W. 552 (Mich. 1920)............. 14

Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2014)................. 1

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)...18, 21, 22, 23

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)................. 4, 8, 22

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996)..................ccs000 20

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Meriwether v. Fourth & First Bank & Trust

Co., 285 S.W. 34 (Tenn. 1926)

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).............. 19, 22

Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)....... 4,18

Pierce v. Soc’, of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)......19, 20, 22

Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)............... 7

Robinson v. Commonwealth, 212 S.W.3d 100

SET TTI cd icechadiitincendiahaidialidiainiaeyblltadabamnanaianadiiaiaseieeey 13

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).................. 18

Savini v. Savini, 58 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1952)................ 13

Seabold v. Seabold, 84 N.E.2d 521 (Ohio Ct.

I aa i a a cl 5

Soley v. Soley, 655 N.E.2d 1381 (Ohio Ct. App.

Sees ern ecaiebiaisdaniidaianbbaaisamuadien 13

Surrogate Parenting Assoc., Inc. v. Com. ex rel.

Armstrong, 704 S.W.2d 209 (Ky. 1986)................... 16

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) .............. 17, 18, 22

United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675

le a 2,9

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)............ 2

Verhage v. Verhage, No. 12-04-00309-CV, 2006

WL 1791565 (Tex. App. 2006)

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)............0...0.... 7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

8 Ge | Eee aOS 3, 7

Rate. Cote Am. § O-B-BiB......cccceccvessescccscscscccccsesscsceceses 17

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-102..............ccccccccccsscsccesscscsscceees 6

BR, GRE I, BB Br Be ccccciccseciscensuscssscscsuceticsecossecces 4

hs I, i I cainierisicinedceimmmnnnetiaagiees 4

Bs Oe ID icececictcccdcsiinnccctecciniistcicniiiientd 4

ee Ny Or csc cccicccniessicninccstinnininnadininsiinniininns 11

es Ga I, Oe Br i rcctictcscsccecciesccsnecencecssccenssccs 12

Ark. Const. amend. LXXXITI ................ eee eeeeeeee eee 4

I a i a 6

a 4

I 12

Sis Ms I OR IR, Osi ieicledineniipemeoennbindleini 4

EE eR ea eae en ee en NEE 4

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 199.520 ................cccccccesseeceeeeeees 16

By. Rev. Stat. Amm. § 403.006 .........0.ccccccosscccosseesvessccnees 4

Be Sy GN IN, Oe GI ossicicacccvecscntcctesctensicensasees 5

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.020 ......00........ ccc cece eee 4,5,6

Be, Be GR. aaeee, BH GI ce cnceccscccccccsccecccsossccsenceses 12

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.040 0.00000... eeeeeeeeeeeee 4

Se ne SL ND, OP IID sincvescedeedscemesoiensesciceedncsoies 4

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.050 .........cccccccccececeseeeseseseeesees )

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

ee 9

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.130 .o...ccccccccccescsssessescececececeee 9

8 9

Biot Bow, Bhat. Aan. § GG. IBD ..cersccvscsvssccssecssenssersesesussie 9

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.160 ......0.... 0... eee cee cence eee 9

Bees Tar, Get, Game, BG BO cceccecsesesencicsscocsevtesconsieniats 9

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.170 .............. 0... cece ecee cence ness 11

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40B.211 .......0seccccccscsccsccsnsescessees 11

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.720(1)............00...ccccceeceeeeeees 10

La. Child. Code Amm. Gt. 1546.......cccccccccsscccsoscssccesccseses 6

Bei, Gs GO FI: CG, TED ecccoccepccnsceincnnsveeseesnnesnsetenenin 4

ete, CR SRD ARI. GG BI crcccocccceciovsintinticnsenententniamibiiaees 4

La. Cie, Cote Asm. G86. BEBO ..0cccoscscsescesccesensccecsesesseseses 4

Es Sb ara 4

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 400.1501..............000...:00000 10

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.1...................ccceceeeeenseees 4

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.2.............ccccecccceseeeeeeeeees 5

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.3..............ccccceecceseeeeceeees 5

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.4.................cceccecseeeeeeeees 5

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.5...............0.c.cccceceeeeeeeees 5

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.7..................ccccceeceeeeseees 9

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.9.................cccccceceeeseceees 9

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.51...............c cece eeeeee neers 5

Vili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.103........................... 5,6

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.151......................2......-. 9

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.152......................:ceeee )

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.153.........................2.004 9

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.154......................2........ 4

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.201............................... 6

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.271..........................0004 4

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.272....................c:sceeeeee 4

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.2.....................cc.c0cee00 12

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.6.....................0...0....00 11

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.16.............................4. 11

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 557.28...........................00+. ll

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.2114........................... 16

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.60............................04. 16

| eee 4

i eae nneueinninnasonines 4

Miss. Code. Ann. § 93-1-5 .......................cc.ccccccccccscceseees 6

Bigs. Code. Am. § 93-12-17 .........cccccccccccccccccccccccecccesceees i)

Miss. Code. Ann. § 93-5-233 ...............cccccccececsecececeeeeeees ll

Ss CE, MUIR, OP GIPIAID cccccccccccccocesccoscocesesoercescecoes 10

Mijas. Comat. art. AIV, § BEBA .......cccccccccccccccscccccccccescsees 4

ss ccc rnsnnnsenononsnnoooonsssond 4

a cnssonevsconseseused 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-03-01 ...200.0...... ccc ccc eee cece eee 4

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-03.2-01 ......00.0....00.cccc cee ll

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-03-02 00.00.0000... 6

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-03-09 .......0000 0.0.0. i)

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-09-08 .....0.. 00.2... ...2.ccceeeeeee. 11

8 BF > & | «Sr esereeennseaeneEeenenCe aioe 4

OS eee eM een ee 4

a eee Se 4

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2106.22 ..............0c coco ccc cece eee ee ll

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.01 ..............00..00.000.... 4,5,6

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.04 20000000000 cccecccececeeeee 6

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.05 ..........0.......200.00..20-02 220s 9

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3103.06 ...................cccecceeeeeeeee 12

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3103.08 .....0.......0......cccccecceeeeee 9

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.01 ....0..........ccccc cece cee ll

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.31 ..................00c..cccccceeeee 12

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3107.15 .0........0.0.0ccccccccecccceeee 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.88............0...........ccccceeeee 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.89.............000.00 ccc 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.90.....................cccccceeeeeees 16

Ohio Rev. Code Anmm. § 3111.91 ..............cocccoccocecocccceces 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.92...............ccccccccecceceeceeee 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.93 .........0.0. 0 coco cece cecc cee 16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.94....................cccececeeneeees 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.95...................0.0...20 cece eee 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.96...................... 2. cece ceeeees 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.97 ..................0 0c ccc cece ceee ee 16

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3113.31..........................cceee00e 10

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3119.02.................00.0 ccc cee cece eee 11

A —_—_ 6

S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-1 ...................ceseccsecseecesscesees 4

S.D. Codified Laws $ 25-1-30 ..................c.c.cccoccccscccccese 9

S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-38 .................ccsccsscesscoseceenees 4

es ee CRD Ot ED ccnieccncccssccnsensenisnonsaniatnnin 11

S.D. Codified Laws § 25-4-411 ..................................... 11

S.D. Codified Laws § 25-10-1 .............. 20. cece cccc cece eeeee ees 10

es I, I, I I ann iccnstinripnenieeemntnbinanimaniabidl 4

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-401 0.00.00... occ cece cece cece eee eee ees 16

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-402.................ccccccceeceeeeeeeeeeees 16

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-403................2.2-cccecececeeeceeecees 16

ee, Ge, Oe I itcenicnncoretescteccnnininniieiananittl 5

meme, Ge Bea, © Bie Bi leecccccccccccecccescccscccccsecsscecseces 5

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-104........0...... 0c. cc cccccceeeceeeeeees 5,6

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-105.....................ccccceeeee 5, 6, 12

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-106...........................0eseeeeeees 5,6

Tenn. Code Amn. § 36-3-107..............cccccccocccsccccccccceese 5,6

Page

Se, Se, Br icittttenttnrcccscninnicnnniinnsensinenied 5

SN, Se Se etiencicniesncsntensicansecenescesinnennnnoal 4

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-201...............0... cece cece eee cee eeeee 10

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-210...................cccccccesseeeeeeeeees 10

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-301........................ccscseeseecseesess g

Tenn. Code Ann. $ 36-3-302......................cccecccccceceeeeees 4

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-501........0... 00... e cece ee eee ll

I, So eicciciieemaninis 10

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-101........... 00... eee eee 11

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101.................. 2... 0cc ccc ceeceeee eens 11

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-111 ................. 00... eee ee ee ee 10

po ee oe ere Oee 4

lal ale 4

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.001 2000.00.00... ccc cece cece cee ee eee ee 4

es ee, Ce, Sr _.ctemnesumbbondnemniiial 5

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.102 20.0000... 0. ccc ce cece cece eeee eee 6

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.103 2020.00.00... 0c ccc cece cecececeeee eee 6

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.202 2.2.0.0... ccc ccc ccc ceceeeeceeeeee 9

Tex. Fam. Code Amn. § 4.003.................cccccccccsccccescosees. 11

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 4.102 ..2..........0. ccc cece ccc ecececeeeeees 12

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.001 2000.00.00... ccc cece cece cnc cc cee eeee 11

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.002 ................ccccccccececcceceeeeee ll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.003 ...2.0.....0.0 ccc cece eee cece eee ll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

. Fam.

Page

ED CC criciinveceinincecnieiniieaiinieinicesaniiiini 11

S| Eon eee eee ll

I: Cae eseeeibemesieianieean ll

Se 11

I inlet 11

ene 12

ree 12

I ee 12

ES renee 12

I I ccisncsithisminpnniitiibitianimensianiiil 12

0 NG | 8 Se eeee see eeee 12

SSPE nsceenneeeemen ee 12

ls We nsicincdcditniiisndseninciiannssaeentute 12

Code Ann. § 6.109 ................cccccceceeceeceeeseees 12

I, SiC ciiccnnsiccsninscniiesnuntionnceeniiianiatin 12

I see 12

TS | | ESSERE neon 5

I, SII nvidcinnscecesensinictsnneninenienied 5

I anil 4

NS TF et cesenncecncecssntenencesmemeness 10

RL, Fo TI cerccsecccscesvsceseccserastcnnsse 11

SS Sk FREES eEeesereones 16

oS Eee 16

xiii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.703 00.00.00... .cccccccccc cece eens 16

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.704 ...................ccccccceeeeeees 16

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.705 .................ccccceeeeeeeeees 16

Tex. Fam. Code Amm. § 160.706 ......cccccccccccssccccesescoceces 16

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.707 .................ccccccceeeceeeees 16

pe ee 17

OTHER AUTHORITIES

1 Tex. Prac. Guide Fam. Law § 2:49 .......................... 10

15 Ky. Prac. Domestic Relations L. § 10:1................. 12

15 Ky. Prac. Domestic Relations L. § 10:2................. 12

15 Ky. Prac. Domestic Relations L. § 10:3................. 12

15 Ky. Prac. Domestic Relations L. § 10:4................. 12

15 Ky. Prac. Domestic Relations L. § 10:5................. 12

15 Ky. Prac. Domestic Relations L. § 10:6................. 12

15 Ky. Prac. Domestic Relations L. § 10:7................. 12

Mich. Civ. Jur. Marriage § 31........................ceeceecceeeee 12

Mich. Civ. Jur. Marriage § 32......................ccccceeeeeeeees 12

Mich. Civ. Jur. Marriage § 33.............................4- —

Mich. Civ. Jur. Marriage § 34......................ccccceceeeeeees 12

Mich. Civ. dur. Marriage § B6..........ccccccccccccccccscccccscceee 12

Mich. Civ. Jur. Marriage § 36.....................ccccsececeeeenes 12

Mich. Civ. Jur. Marriage § 37...................ccccseseceeceeeees 12

Xi1V

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Ohio Op. Atty. Gen. 69-051, May 27, 1969 .................. 9

W. Walton Garrett, 19 Tenn. Prac. Tenn. Di-

vorce, Alimony & Child Custody § 1:7 (2013

aerate a adhe iat laa ihc 12

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Columbia Law School Sexuality and

Gender Law Clinic (the Clinic or Amicus), founded

in 2006, is the first such clinical law program at an

American law school.’ The Clinic has extensive exper-

tise in the constitutional doctrine related to marriage

and family recognition. In fact, the Clinic has pre-

viously submitted amicus briefs on issues related to

due process and marital choice to the Sixth Circuit in

the instant case, the First Circuit in Conde-Vidal v.

Rius-Armendariz, No. 14-2184 (1st Cir. filed Nov. 13,

2014), the Fourth Circuit in Bostic v. Schaefer, 760

F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014), the Fifth Circuit De Leon v.

Abbott, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. argued Jan. 9, 2015),

the Seventh Circuit in Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648

(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 316 (2014), the

Ninth Circuit in Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir.

2014), and the Eleventh Circuit in Brenner v. Arm-

strong, Nos. 14-14061, 14-14066 (11th Cir. filed Sept.

5, 2014).

The Clinic has also submitted amicus briefs in

numerous other cases seeking to end the exclusion of

same-sex couples from marriage and the exclusion of

same-sex couples’ marriages from legal recognition

’ All parties have consented to the filing of this amicus

curiae brief pursuant to Rules 37.3 and 37.6 of the Rules of the

Supreme Court. No counsel for a party authored this brief in

whole or in part, and no one other than amicus, its members, or

its counsel made any monetary contribution toward the brief’s

preparation or submission.

including United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675

(2013), and Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652

(2013), and before state supreme courts in California

in In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008),

Connecticut in Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Pub. Health,

957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008), and Iowa in Varnum v.

Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009).

The Clinic’s interest here is in addressing the

relation between state laws governing marriage and

the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee — and

in particular, the ways in which states generally

avoid restricting individuals’ choice of spouse. As this

amicus brief shows, the protection of individual de-

cisionmaking in matters as personally important as

marriage is reflected in marriage statutes and case

law throughout the country. This body of law imposes

few restrictions, apart from the ones at issue here, on

adults’ choice of marital partners and on the recogni-

tion of valid marriages.

The laws of the states at issue here stand out, by

contrast. They, along with the laws of a small group of

other states, impose a singular, categorical and consti-

tutionally impermissible burden on lesbians and gay

men who seek to exercise their fundamental right to

marry their chosen partner and to have that mar-

riage recognized.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Marriage laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio,

Tennessee, and the nine other states that exclude

same-sex couples from marriage and marriage recog-

nition are largely consistent with the Due Process

Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const. amend.

XTV, §1, which protects “freedom of choice” in

marriage, as this Court has recognized repeatedly.

That is, these states’ domestic relations frameworks

generally take pains not to restrict individuals’ ability

to marry the person of their choice. They likewise

impose few restrictions on the conduct and choices of

married couples, other than forbidding abuse. Simi-

larly, no state requires or even suggests distinct roles

for male and female spouses within a marriage.

Matters stand otherwise with respect to individ-

uals who would choose a spouse of the same sex.

Freedom of choice is absent here. Laws constraining

individuals from choosing a same-sex marital partner

and having that marriage recognized thus exist in

sharp contrast to states’ otherwise pervasive respect for

marital freedom of choice. In doing so, they infringe

the Constitution’s long-settled protection against state

interference in deeply personal decisions related to

family life.’

* Amicus endorses, but does not duplicate here, the Petition-

ers’ arguments that state restrictions on marriage and marriage

recognition for same-sex couples also violate the Constitution's

equal protection guarantee.

ARGUMENT

I. States Generally Allow Freedom of Choice

in Marriage, Consistent with the Due Pro-

cess Clause, but for Their Selective Exclu-

sion of Same-Sex Couples.

The constitutions, statutes and case law of Ken-

tucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and the nine other

states that restrict same-sex couples from marriage

and marriage-recognition (the “marriage-ban states”’)

impose few burdens on the “freedom of choice” in

marriage that this Court has deemed to be funda-

mental under the Due Process Clause. See generally

Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977);

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1967). Their

* As of the filing of this brief, these states include: Arkansas,

see Ark. Const. amend. LXXXIII; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-11-107, 9-

11-109, 9-11-208 (West 2014); Georgia, see Ga. Const. art. I, § 4,

7 I; Ga. Code Ann. § 19-3-3.1 (West 2014); Kentucky, see Ky.

Const. § 233A; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.005, 402.020, 402.040,

402.045 (West 2014); Louisiana, see La. Const. art. XII, § 15; La.

Civ. Code Ann. arts. 89, 96, 3520 (West 2014); Michigan, see

Mich. Const. art. I, § 25; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 551.1, 551.271,

551.272 (West 2014); Mississippi, see Miss. Const. art. XIV,

§ 2634; Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-1 (West 2014); Missouri, see

Mo. Const. art. I, § 33; Mo. Ann. Stat. § 451.022 (West 2014);

Nebraska, see Neb. Const. art. I, § 29; North Dakota, see N.D.

Const. art. XI, § 28; N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-03-01 (West

2013); Ohio, see Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11; Ohio Rev. Code Ann.

§ 3101.01 (West 2014); South Dakota, see S.D. Const. art. XXI,

§ 9; S.D. Codified Laws §§ 25-1-1, 25-1-38 (West 2014); Tennes-

see, see Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113

(West 2014); and Texas, see Tex. Const. art. I, § 32; Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. §§ 2.001, 6.204 (West 2013).

restrictions on choice of a same-sex spouse defy this

otherwise pervasive freedom.

A. The Marriage-Ban States Impose Few

Limits on a Person’s Choice of Spouse,

Other Than the Choice of a Same-Sex

Spouse at Issue Here.

Apart from the restrictions challenged in this

case, the domestic relations law of Kentucky, Michi-

gan, Ohio, Tennessee, and the other marriage-ban

states prohibits marriage only when one or both part-

ners is currently married or lacks the capacity to

consent, or when the partners are related to a speci-

fied degree by blood or marriage. See, e.g., Ky. Rev.

Stat. Ann. § 402.020(1)(b) (bigamy); id. § 402.020(1\f)

(age of consent); id. § 402.010 (consanguinity); Mich.

Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 551.3-551.4 (consanguinity); id.

§ 551.5 (bigamy); id. § 551.2 (capacity to consent); id.

§§ 551.51, 551.103 (age of consent); Ohio Rev. Code

Ann. § 3101.01 (bigamy, age of consent, consan-

guinity); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-101 (consanguinity);

id. § 36-3-102 (bigamy); id. § 36-3-104 to 36-3-107

(age of consent); id. § 36-3-109 (capacity to consent);

Seabold v. Seabold, 84 N.E.2d 521, 523 (Ohio Ct. App.

1948) (capacity to consent); see also, e.g., Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 2.101 (age of consent); id. § 6.201 (con-

sanguinity); id. § 6.202 (bigamy).

Parental consent is typically required for anyone

age sixteen or seventeen. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 402.020(1\f) (requiring parental consent); Mich.

Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.103 (same); Tenn. Code

Ann. §§ 36-3-104 to 36-3-107 (same); see also, e.g.,

La. Child. Code Ann. art. 1545 (same). Cf. Ark. Code

Ann. § 9-11-102 (providing minimum marriage age

of seventeen for men and sixteen for women, and

setting out consent requirements); Ohio Rev. Code

Ann. § 3101.01(A) (providing minimum marriage age

of eighteen for men and sixteen for women, and

setting out consent requirements).

States generally also forbid marriage for those

under sixteen years old. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 402.020(1\(f1) (generally barring marriages be-

tween individuals younger than sixteen); Mich.

Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.103 (same); Ohio Rev. Code

Ann. § 3101.01 (same); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-105

(same); see also, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § 19-3-2 (same);

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-03-02 (same); S.C. Code

Ann. § 20-1-100 (same); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.102

(same).

Even these restrictions, however, are waivable

under certain circumstances. See, e.g., Ky. Rev.

Stat. Ann. § 402.020(1)(f)(3) (setting out exception to

minimum-age restriction based on pregnancy); Mich.

Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.201 (providing exception with

parental consent); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.04

(setting out pregnancy exception); Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 36-3-107 (allowing for waiver of minimum age re-

quirements); see also, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-5(d)

(allowing waiver of minimum age requirements); Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.102-2.103 (same).

In other words, in the marriage-ban states, an

unmarried person who is at least eighteen years old

and has the capacity to consent can marry any other

consenting adult who is not a relative, and have that

marriage recognized — so long as the chosen partner

is also not of the same sex. See supra.

The four states in the instant case as well as

other marriage-ban states, like every other state,

thus impose few restrictions on the “freedom of per-

sonal choice in matters of marriage” guaranteed by

the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. See U.S.

Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.

LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974); see also

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 387 (1978) (stress-

ing that “freedom of choice” is a “fundamental” aspect

of marriage).

This Court has reinforced that states should not

limit an individual’s choice of spouse outside of base-

line concerns related to consanguinity, minimum age,

bigamy, and consent. “(T]he regulation of constitu-

tionally protected decisions, such as ... whom [a

person] shall marry, must be predicated on legitimate

state concerns other than disagreement with the

choice the individual has made.” Hodgson v. Min-

nesota, 497 U.S. 417, 435 (1990); see also Roberts v.

U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 620 (1984) (“[TJhe Consti-

tution undoubtedly imposes constraints on the State’s

power to control the selection of one’s spouse... .”);

Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85

(1977) (“{I]t is clear that among the decisions that an

individual may make without unjustified government

interference are personal decisions ‘relating to mar-

riage. .. .’”) (citations omitted); Loving, 388 U.S. at 12

(“Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not

marry, a person of another race resides with the

individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”).

Consistent with these holdings, numerous lower

courts have determined that this constitutional pro-

tection encompasses an individual’s choice of a same-

sex partner. In Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 376

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 308 (2014), for

example, the Fourth Circuit explained that the fun-

damental right to marry “is not circumscribed based

on the characteristics of the individuals seeking to

exercise that right.” The court added: “If courts

limited the right to marry to certain couplings, they

would effectively create a list of legally preferred

spouses, rendering the choice of whom to marry a

hollow choice instead.” Jd. at 377. The Tenth Circuit

likewise observed that “surely a great deal of the

dignity of same-sex relationships inheres in the lov-

ing bonds between those who seek to marry and the

personal autonomy of. making such choices.” Kitchen

v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1214 (10th Cir), cert.

denied, 135 S. Ct. 265 (2014); see also, e.g., Bishop v.

Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, 1080 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,

135 S. Ct. 271 (2014) (“State bans on the licensing of

same-sex marriage significantly burden the funda-

mental right to marry....”); De Leon v. Perry, 975

F. Supp. 2d 632, 657 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (“While Texas

has the ‘unquestioned authority’ to regulate and define

marriage, the State must nevertheless do so in a way

that does not infringe on an individual’s constitutional

rights.”) (quoting United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct.

2675, 2693 (2013)), appeal docketed sub nom. De Leon

v. Abbott, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. argued Jan. 9, 2015).

Of course, like every state, Kentucky, Michigan,

Ohio, Tennessee, and the other marriage-ban states

have rules in place regarding the solemnization of

marriages. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.050(1)

(indicating who can solemnize a marriage); Mich.

Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.7 (same); id. § 551.9 (pro-

viding that “no particular form shall be required” to

solemnize a marriage); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.08

(identifying individuals authorized to solemnize a

marriage); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-301 (same); id.

§ 36-3-302 (providing that “no formula need be ob-

served” in solemnization of marriage); see also, e.g.,

Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-17 (listing people able to

solemnize a marriage); N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-03-

09 (same); S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-30 (same); Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. § 2.202 (same).

But these rules do not restrict individuals in

their choice of spouse beyond the few eligibility re-

quirements discussed supra. See, e.g., Ohio Op. Atty.

Gen. 69-051, May 27, 1969 (prohibiting probate courts

from requiring IQ or other test to prove mental ca-

pacity or from refusing to issue a marriage license

based on a party’s inability to support a family). Even

premarital blood test and medical examination re-

quirements were repealed in the marriage-ban states

long ago. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.120-

.170 (repealed in 1982); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.

§§ 551.151-.154 (repealed in 1978); Ohio Rev. Code

Ann. § 3101.05 (repealed in 1981); Tenn. Code Ann.

§§ 36-3-201, 36-3-210 (repealed in 1985); see also, e.g.,

1 Tex. Prac. Guide Fam. Law § 2:49 (“Medical ex-

aminations and blood testing are no longer re-

quired... .”).

Against this backdrop, the rules at issue here,

which disallow individuals from marrying the person

of their choice and refuse recognition to individuals

who chose to marry a same-sex partner, see supra, cut

strikingly against the due process limitation on gov-

ernment interference with this intimate and personal

choice.

B. Also Consistent with Due Process, States

Do Not Prescribe Gender Roles for Mar-

ried Couples.

There is little in the law of any state, includ-

ing in the Sixth Circuit, specifying how spouses

should behave within marriage; the few rules that

do exist focus on violence and abuse, and all of those

are gender-neutral. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 403.720(1) (defining “domestic violence and abuse”);

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 400.1501(d\i)-(iv) (defining

“domestic violence”); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3113.31

(same); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-601(4) (defining “domes-

tic abuse”); id. § 39-13-111 (criminalizing “domestic

assault”); see also, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 93-21-3(a)

(defining “abuse”); S.D. Codified Laws § 25-10-1(1)

(defining “domestic abuse”); Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 71.004 (defining “family violence”).

Statutes governing divorce and child support

similarly do not differentiate between male and fe-

male spouses. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.170

(divorce); id. § 403.211 (child support); Mich. Comp.

Laws Ann. § 552.6(1) (divorce); id. § 552.16(1) (child

support); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.01 (divorce); id.

§ 3119.02 (child support); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-101

(divorce); id. § 36-5-101(a\1) (child support); see also,

e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-23 (child support and

alimony); N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 14-09-08 (child sup-

port); S.D. Codified Laws § 25-4-41 (spousal support);

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 6.001-.008 (divorce); id.

§ 154.001 (child support).

Indeed, states within and outside of the Sixth

Circuit generally permit spouses to craft agreements

that define the terms of their marriage so long as

the agreements “have been entered into ... freely,

knowledgeably and in good faith and without exertion

of duress or undue influence upon either spouse.”

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-501 (allowing prenuptial

agreements); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 557.28 (pre-

nuptial); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2106.22 (prenuptial);

id. § 3103.05 (postnuptial); Hardesty v. Hardesty Ex’r,

34 S.W.2d 442 (Ky. 1931) (prenuptial); Campbell v.

Campbell, 377 S.W. 93 (Ky. 1964) (postnuptial);

Hodge v. Parks, 844 N.W.2d 189, 195 (Mich. Ct. App.

2014) (postnuptial); Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d

595, 600 (Tenn. 2004) (postnuptial); see also, e.g., Ark.

Code Ann. § 9-11-403 (prenuptial); N.D. Cent. Code Ann.

§ 14-03.2-01 (prenuptial); S.D. Codified Laws § 25-2-

18 (prenuptial); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 4.003(a)(8), (b)

(prenuptial); id. § 4.102 (postnuptial). But see Ohio

Rev. Code Ann. § 3103.06 (restricting marital part-

ners from contracting to alter their legal relations).

C. States Further Protect Marital Choice

by Limiting Annulment and Recogniz-

ing Marriages Even Where Spouses Had

Dubious Motives.

States also strictly limit the circumstances in

which marriages can be annulled, reinforcing that

parties exercise nearly complete autonomy when

choosing marital partners, for better or worse. See,

e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.030 (permitting an-

nulment where spouse is underage only if sought by

the underage spouse or another acting on the un-

derage spouse’s behalf); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.

§ 552.2 (same); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.31 (same);

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-105 (same); see also, e.g.,

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-201 (detailing limited grounds

available for annulment); Ga. Code Ann. § 19-4-1 (pro-

hibiting annulment where children are born of mar-

riage); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 6.101-.111 (restricting

annulment to situations, including, inter alia, an un-

derage spouse who lacked parental consent or a court

order; fraud, incapacity, and nondisclosed divorce); cf.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.31 (discussing additional

limited grounds for annulment, including bigamy,

mental incapacity, and fraud); 15 Ky. Prac. Domestic

Relations L. §§ 10:1-:7 (same); Mich. Civ. Jur. Mar-

riage §§ 31-37 (same); W. Walton Garrett, 19 Tenn.

Prac. Tenn. Divorce, Alimony & Child Custody § 1:7

(2013 ed.) (same).

As a result, nearly all marriages — including

those entered into under circumstances that would

offend many Americans and those that contravene

state law, other than bigamous or closely consanguin-

eous marriages — are treated as presumptively valid.

See, e.g., Robinson v. Commonwealth, 212 S.W.3d 100,

104-06 (Ky. 2006) (holding that marriage between

37-year-old and 14-year-old was valid (“voidable, not

void”) and rejecting statutory rape charge on that

ground); Savini v. Savini, 58 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1952)

(treating a marriage as valid and holding that a wife

was entitled to divorce, but not annulment, where her

husband deliberately concealed prior to marriage that

he had been convicted of rape and was on parole).

Courts also regularly decline to void marriages be-

tween first cousins that would not be permitted under

state law. See, e.g., In re Miller’s Estate, 214 N.W. 428

(Mich. 1927) (refusing to void a marriage between

first cousins that would not have been allowed under

state law); Soley v. Soley, 655 N.E.2d 1381 (Ohio Ct.

App. 1995) (same).

States systematically conclude, as well, that the

dubious motives of one or both spouses do not render

a marriage invalid, underscoring their general com-

mitment to non-interference with individuals’ choice

of spouse. See, e.g., In re Estate of Smallman, 398

S.W.3d 134, 154 (Tenn. 2013) (holding that evidence

suggesting that a womar. who married her husband

two weeks before he died was a “bad person” and a

“‘gold digger’” could not be a proper basis for invali-

dating a marriage and that evidence about the hus-

band’s ill health did not establish his lack of consent);

Coulter v. Hendricks, 918 S.W.2d 424, 425, 427 (Tenn.

Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied (citations omitted) (ob-

serving that Tennessee will not annul marriages “en-

tered into in jest”); see also, e.g., Adler v. Adler, 805

So. 2d 952 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (disallowing an-

nulment notwithstanding that the wife had lied about

her previous marriages and that the husband would

not have entered into the marriage had he been

aware of her marital history); Verhage v. Verhage, No.

12-04-00309-CV, 2006 WL 1791565 *1 (Tex. App.

2006) (adjudicating a divorce, rather than annulment,

where husband alleged that his “pen-pal wife” had

defrauded him, abused him, and transmitted a sexual

disease to him); cf. Hawkins v. Hawkins, 258 S.W.

962, 963 (Ky. 1924) (treating marriage as valid where

one spouse had “no other motive in view in marrying

{her husband] than to secure every ease, luxury, and

comfort obtainable for herself and family and to give

to her husband as little affection and pleasure and

association as possible”); Koebel v. Koebel, 176 N.W.

552, 553 (Mich. 1920) (describing a spouse’s motive

for marriage as “purely a commercial one in which

‘Dan Cupid’ had no part”).

D. Eligibility for Marriage in the United

States Does Not Hinge on Spouses Be-

ing Able to Procreate Biologically.

Within the extensive body of state law just dis-

cussed, there is no procreation requirement associ-

ated with marriage — and there is no law supporting

the position that eligibility to marry turns on a cou-

ples’ capacity to have children biologically. A federal

district court in Florida put the point sharply:

Florida has never conditioned marriage on

the desire or capacity to procreate. Thus

individuals who are medically unable to pro-

create can marry in Florida. If married else-

where, their marriages are recognized in

Florida. The same is true for individuals who

are beyond child-bearing age. And individu-

als who have the capacity to procreate when

married but who voluntarily or involuntarily

become medically unable to procreate, or

pass the age when they can do so, are al-

lowed to remain married. In short, the notion

that procreation is an essential element of a

Florida marriage blinks reality.

Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1289 (N.D. Fia.

2014), appeal docketed sub nom. Brenner v. Armstrong,

Nos. 14-14061, 14-14066 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2014).

Indeed, state domestic relations laws expressly

recognize that married couples (as well as unmarried

individuals and couples) have children in a range of

ways and draw no legal distinction between children

conceived by or adopted by their parents. A Tennessee

statute, for example, dedicates an entire part to

establishing rules for “Parentage of Children Born of

Donated Embryo Transfer,” including that children

have the same legal status regardless of whether

their parents received medical assistance in concep-

tion. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-2-401 to -403. Ohio

also recognizes that couples have children via “non-

spousal artificial insemination” and embryo donation

and has legislated to protect those parent-child re-

lationships. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3111.88-.97.

Likewise, Michigan sets out a statutory framework

for inheritance by children conceived following a mar-

ried couples’ “utilization of assisted reproductive tech-

nology.” See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.2114(a).

And the Kentucky Supreme Court has affirmed the

state’s allowance of parentage via surrogacy. See Sur-

rogate Parenting Assoc., Inc. v. Com. ex rel. Arm-

strong, 704 S.W.2d 209 (Ky. 1986); see also, e.g., Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. §§ 160.701-.707 (establishing rules

for “Child[ren] of Assisted Reproduction”).

All states also have long affirmed that adopted

children have the same legal status as children con-

ceived by their parents. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 199.520 (providing for equal treatment of adopted

and biological children); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.

§ 710.60 (“After entry of the order of adoption, there

is no distinction between the rights and duties of

natural progeny and adopted persons... .”); Ohio Rev.

Code Ann. § 3107.15 (same, with limited exceptions

for adoptions of individuals age eighteen or older);

Meriwether v. Fourth & First Bank & Trust Co., 285

S.W. 34, 34 (Tenn. 1926) (rejecting challenge to an

adoptive child’s inheritance and holding that an

adopted child Has the same legal status as a “legiti-

mate natural” child); see also, e.g., Ark. Code Ann.

§ 9-9-215 (declaring adoption decree establishes “re-

lationship of parent and child between petitioner and

the adopted individual, as if the adopted individual

were a legitimate blood descendant of the petitioner,

for all purposes”); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 162.017(a)

(“An order of adoption creates the parent-child rela-

tionship between the adoptive parent and the child

for all purposes.”).

This delinking of marriage and biological procre-

ation is consistent with this Court’s commentary on

the due process protections governing marriage. As

explained in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96

(1987), marriage remains a fundamental right for

individuals, such as prison inmates, who may never

have the opportunity to “consummate” a marriage,

much less have children within the marriage. While

observing that “most inmates eventually will be re-

leased” and might have that opportunity, the Court

did not limit the marriage right, or its recognition of

marriage’s important attributes, to those inmates. /d.

at 96. Instead, Turner stressed that numerous other

“important attributes of marriage remain ... [even]

after taking into account the limitations imposed by

prison life.” Jd. Among these are “expressions of

emotional support and public commitment ... [as] an

important and significant aspect of the marital rela-

tionship,” along with “spiritual significance” and “the

receipt of government benefits ... , property rights

..., and other, less tangible benefits.” Jd. at 95-96.

ll. The Marriage Restrictions at Issue Infringe

Same-Sex Couples’ Constitutionally Pro-

tected Liberty Interests in Family Integrity

and Association.

As this Court has explained many times, the

Constitution’s due process and equal protection guar-

antees protect the freedom to marry as one among

several “aspects of what might broadly be termed

‘private family life’ that are constitutionally protected

against state interference.” Moore, 431 U.S. at 536.

Others identified by this Court include “personal de-

cisions relating to ... procreation, contraception,

family relationships, child rearing, and education.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003) (citing

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505

U.S. 833, 851 (1992)).

These kinds of decisions, like the decision to

marry, are elemental to an individual’s ability to

“define the attributes of personhood.’” Jd. For this

reason, numerous cases hold that “the Constitution

demands ... the autonomy of the person in making

these choices.” Id.; see also, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer,

455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) (“[F]reedom of personal choice

in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty in-

terest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”).

This Court has consistently held, too, that auton-

omy to choose how to structure one’s family life must

be accessible to all rather than available only for those

favored by the state. Two older decisions regarding the

rights of parents to control their children’s education,

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 396-97 (1923), and

Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925),

lay the groundwork for this proposition. These deci-

sions make clear that due process jurisprudence is

centrally concerned with guaranteeing equal access to

fundamental associational rights, a commitment the

Court has carried forward to the present.

In Meyer, this Court overturned a law that made

it illegal to teach any language other than English to

a student who had not yet completed eighth grade.

Recognizing that the law’s impact fell singularly on

“‘those of foreign lineage,’” Meyer, 262 U.S. at 398

(quoting the decision below, Meyer v. State, 107 Neb.

657, 662 (1922)), the opinion stressed that “[tjhe pro-

tection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who

speak other languages as well as to those born with

English on the tongue.” Jd. at 401.

Pointedly, the fundamental associational right to

“establish a home and bring up children” had to be

available on an equal basis to the country’s newest

inhabitants as well as to its longtime residents. Jd. at

399. Equal access to this associational right out-

weighed the state’s proffered interest in establishing

English as the primary language, id. at 401, even

though that interest was surely central to American

life at that time.

In Pierce, this Court likewise overturned on due

process grounds a law that required all children to

attend public schools because the law “unreasonably

interfere[d] with the liberty of parents and guardians

to direct the upbringing and education of children

under their control.” 268 U.S. at 534-35. In this case,

the targets were religious minorities — specifically,

Roman Catholics — who maintained that the law “con-

flictted) with the right of parents to choose schools

where their children will receive appropriate mental

and religious training.” Jd. at 532. The states’ refusal

to allow those parents equal access to the right to

decide how their children weuld be educated offended

the “fundamental theory of liberty.” Jd. at 535.

Addressing a different type of restriction on fa-

milial choices, this Court similarly struck down a

state-imposed fee to appeal terminations of parental

rights because that fee unequally burdened indigent

persons’ associational right to be parents. See M.L.B.

v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 127 (1996). M.L.B. recognized

that “‘[djue process and equal protection principles

converge’” when state action restricts individual

choices related to family formation. Jd. at 120. The

fee requirement “fencled] out would-be appellants

based solely on their inability to pay core costs,” id.,

violating the core principle that where a fundamental

liberty interest is involved — such as the integrity of

the parent-child relationship — the state must provide

“‘equal justice’” to all. Jd. at 124 (quoting Griffin v.

Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 24 (1956)).

Same-sex couples and their deeply personal

decisions about how to build a family life together are

no exception to this rule. In Lawrence, 539 U.S. 558,

this Court relied on due process to strike down a

law that restricted gay people’s associational freedom

to make personal choices about sexual intimacy. By

holding that “the substantive guarantee of liberty”

may not be infringed for individuals who choose same-

sex partners any more than it can be infringed for

heterosexual couples, Lawrence affirmed that the due

process guarantee protects individuals’ ability to ex-

ercise their fundamental rights on an equal basis

with others. Id. at 575. As the Court explained, “[pjer-

sons in a homosexual relationship may seek autono-

my ... just as heterosexual persons do” for “‘the most

intimate and personal choices a person may make in a

lifetime.’” Jd. at 574 (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 851).

III. The Due Process and Equal Protection Guar-

antees Require Equal Access to Fundamen-

tal Rights, Including Autonomy in Decisions

about Childrearing, Intimacy, and Whom to

Marry.

Arguments that the instant cases implicate a

“new” right to marry a person of the same sex, rather

than the fundamental right to marry a person of one’s

choice, ignore the extent to which fundamental rights

are defined by what conduct they protect, not by who

can exercise them. If fundamental rights could be re-

defined so easily and superficially, the Constitution’s

insistence on equal and fair access to those rights

would be eviscerated — states could restrict a group’s

exercise of a fundamental right and then characterize

the right as one available only to those not similarly

burdened.

Refashioning the right at issue in any of the

Court’s familial-choice due process cases just dis-

cussed makes clear how unworkable this proposition

is. Meyer, for example, was not based on a fundamen-

tal right of Germans to raise their children in their

own tradition but rather on a general liberty interest

of all parents in choosing how their children will be

raised. Pierce did not describe a fundamental right to

parent in a Catholic fashion, but rather a general

liberty interest of all parents to choose how their

children are educated.

Likewise, Turner was not a case about “prisoner mar-

riage” any more than Loving was about a fundamental

right to “interracial marriage.” Instead, these cases

were about the fundamental right to marry. Cf. Gris-

wold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) (“Mar-

riage is a coming together for better or for worse,

hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of be-

ing sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of

life, .. . a harmony in living, . . . a bilateral loyalty.”).

Indeed, Lawrence directly corrected a similar

rights-framing error in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.

186 (1986), which had characterized the plaintiff as

seeking protection for “a fundamental right to engage

in homosexual sodomy.” Jd. at 191. Lawrence rejected

that description as a mischaracterization of the nght

at issue. It held, instead, that defendants Lawrence

and Garner sought protection of their fundamental

right to “the autonomy of the person” to make “‘the

most intimate and personal choices ... [tha are]

central to personal dignity and autonomy ... [and]

to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amend-

ment.’” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574 (quoting Casey,

505 U.S. at 851). That liberty right could not properly

be understood as defined by the sex or sexual! orienta-

tion of the parties who sought to exercise it.

Likewise, the speculation that heterosexual cou-

ples might stop valuing marriage if gay and lesbian

couples can marry rests on the similarly impermis-

sible reasoning that a fundamental right can be

denied to some based on the preferences of others.

Indeed, that reasoning is uncomfortably akin to jus-

tifications offered for racially restrictive covenants

nearly a century ago. “It is said that such acquisitions

[of property] by colored persons depreciate property

owned in the neighborhood by white persons.” Buchanan

v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 82 (1917).

In Buchanan, this Court rejected this absurdly

speculative devaluation rationale in a manner that

applies similarly to the instant case: “[P]roperty

[marriage] may be acquired by undesirable white

[heterosexual] neighbors or put to disagreeable

though lawful uses with like results.” Jd.

In short, conditioning one group’s access to a fun-

damental right based on the preferences or actions

of another is wholly contrary to the longstanding

doctrine, just discussed, that recognizes the central

importance of these rights.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Amicus respectfully

requests that this Court reverse the decision of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

and permanently enjoin the laws at issue as unconsti-

tutional.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY P. MONAGHAN SUZANNE B. GOLDBERG

435 West 116th Street Columbia Law School

New York, NY 10027 435 West 116th Street

(212) 854-2644 New York, New York 10027

monaghan@law.columbia.edu (212) 854-0411

Of Counsel sgoldb1@law.columbia.edu

Counsel of Record for

Amicus Curiae

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.