Amicus Curiae Brief — Obergefell v. Hodges

Suprenie € ourt, U.S.

File D

| MAR 6- 206

Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-374.

iHE CLERK

Iu the Supreme Court of the Anited States

JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., Petitioners,

Vv.

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH, et al., Respondents.

---<—3e eo Oe ee eK Ke ee Kee eee ee

VALERIA TANCO, et al., Petitioners,

Vv.

BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, et al., Respondents.

APRIL DEBOER. et al., Petitioners,

Vv.

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

-— ee Oe Oe Oe ee Oe ee oe ee ewe

GREGORY ere et al., Petitioners,

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

On Writs of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF 226 U.S. MAYORS; MAYORS FOR THE

FREEDOM TO MARRY; U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; INT'L

MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOC.; NAT'L LEAGUE OF CITIES;

CITIES OF LOS ANGELES, SAN FRANCISCO, CHICAGO, NEW

YORK AND 36 OTHER CITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Michael N. Feuer Dennis Herrera

City Attorney of Los Angeles City Attorney of San Francisco

James P. Clark Ronald P. Flynn

Thomas H. Peters Christine Van Aken

Blithe Smith Bock Mollie M. Lee

Counsel of Record 1390 Market Street, 6" Floor

Lisa S. Berger San Francisco, CA 94102

Juliann Anderson (415)554- 4290

200 No. Main Street Mollie.| ee@sfgov.org

Los Angeles, CA 90012

(2138)978-6936 Counsel for Amici Curiae

Blithe. Bock@lacity org (Counsel continued on inside cover)

Becker Gallagher - Cincinnati, OH - Washington, D.C. - 800.890.500)

Stephen R. Patton

Attorney for the City of Chicago

Corporation Counsel

City of Chicago Department of Law

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800

Chicago, IL 60602

(312)744-7764

Zachary E. Carter

Attorney for Bill de Blasio,

Mayor of the City of New York

Corporation Counsel for

the City of New York

100 Church Street

New York, New York 10007

(212)356-1000

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... ............. iv

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .. 1

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

BO EE eee oe ee ee ee eee ee 5

I. DISCRIMINATORY MARRIAGE LAWS

IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF

MUNICIPALITIES TO TREAT THEIR

RESIDENTS WITH DIGNITY AND

Es as 66 ao dai alk Nk he ee ee eae 5

A. Municipalities know ffirsthand' the

importance of marriage to individual

dignity, prosperity and social! stability. .. 5

B. In states that deny same-sex couples the

freedom to marry, municipalities offer

costly workarounds and _ inferior

substitutes to marriage. ............. 10

1. “Grossing up” to make up for

additional tax liabilities. .......... 10

2. Domestic partnerships. ........... 1]

3. State pushbacks on municipalities’

ec ok eae ak ois Ca ek wns o eee

C. Marriage’ discrimination hampers

municipalities’ economic growth and their

ability to recruit and retain talented

a oe ae Ciate Bane gia a wee 15

Il.

ll

THE FREEDOM TO MARRY IS

A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR

EVERYONE, INCLUDING GAY MEN AND

PE os Wikeu vans Keyed eees sina oa 18

A. Municipalities have witnessed positive

changes arising from their longstanding

protections against sexual orientation

discrimination, and recognizing the

fundamental freedom to marry would

brin.; about similar positive changes. ... 18

B. Gay men and lesbians share the same

fundamental right to marry recognized by

this Court again and again. .......... 20

C. In contrast to the positive changes in

municipalities that openly recognize the

dignity and respect owed to the gay and

lesbian population generally, permitting

gay people’s freedom to marry to be

withheld by popular vote injures and

stigmatizes same-sex couples and

undermines their dignity and ability to

participate fully in society. ........... 22

D. The Sixth Circuit’s decision contravenes

the respect and dignity municipalities

owe their residents. ................. 24

1. The problems the Sixth Circuit posits

would arise in a society without

marriage for heterosexual couples

apply with equal force to the same-sex

couples of today who must live without

SL” a 5 ak be cle eh nee eee 25

il

2. The Sixth Circuit’s willingness to

make same-sex couples “wait and see”

if their constitutional right to marry

will eventually be recognized should

a is a ok ee 26

Ill. NON-RECOGNITION LAWS VIOLATE THE

RIGHT TO TRAVEL OF SAME-SEX

COUPLES BY TREATING THEM

AS LEGAL STRANGERS AND

INCREASING THEIR NEED FOR PUBLIC

SERVICES UPON ENTRY INTO A

tig yg ly gd yy yy Sere 28

no cacenaee + kee) iS aa % 6 oe mw Oe 36

APPENDIX

Appendix A List of Amici ................. App. 1

iV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Atty. Gen. of N.Y. v. Soto-Lopez,

Ec a ok 6 '0-'o'dd-00' 0 os wwe eS 29

Bassett v. Snyder,

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159253 (E.D. Mich. Nov.

ERAT Pia AP gee RAS a ae ee aa 15

DeBoer v. Snyder,

772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) .... 3, 25, 26, 29, 35

In re Estate of Lenherr,

| ee eee ee 29

Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health,

798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) ................ 6

Henry v. Himes,

14 F.Supp. 3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio 2014) ........ 34

Kerrigan v. Dept. Pub. Health,

Se GEE. Bee GD oo ccc ce sce weeceecs 12,13

Lawrence v. Texas,

Neen re iad ely 36

Loving v. Virginia,

I Ss Nn woes ae ae ce 3, 20, 21

Lozano v. City of Hazelton,

620 F.3d 170 (Srd Cir. 2010) ............... 30

In re Marriage Cases,

te Rg. ree 13, 23

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County,

SR a ee 30

V

Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc., et al. v. Governor of

Michigan,

732 N.W.2d 139 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) .... 14,15

Perry v. Schwarzenegger,

704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...... i

Saenz v. Roe,

526 U.S. 489 (1999) ..............220e- 29, 36

Matter of Sebastian,

879 N.Y.S.2d. 677 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009) ...... 33

Shapiro v. Thompson,

ate of | eee 29, 30

Stadter v. Siperko,

661 S.E.2d 494 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) .......... 32

Toomer v. Witsell,

334 U.S. 385 (1948) ................0..... 29

Troxel v. Granville,

bis & ek. rrr er 34

Turner v. Safley,

£eh & fe. : y 3, 20, 21

United States v. Windsor,

ids &. Ce. SETS CSBES) .. cc ccccccvvcess 13, 34

Zablockhi v. Redhail,

434 U.S. 374 (1978) ..........cc.2200- 3, 20, 21

Zobel v. Williams,

Ge Use. ee GD nc ceccecedsveueusenenus 36

vi

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

2011 Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 297,§ 15.583 ........ 15

ae ee cence eee deenseeceecs 14

EE EE re 14

Rev. Rul. 2013-17, 2013-38 IRB 201 (September 13,

ete et eee abesebeceeseesses 34

CITY CODES AND RESOLUTIONS

City of Hallandale Beach Resolution

ee ee ee 10

City of Wilton Manors Resolution No. 2013-0069 . 10

L.A. Admin. Code § 4.404.1................... 19

L.A. Admin. Code $ 4.404.2. ..............2.5.. 19

L.A. Admin. Code § 4.860 ................4... 19

L.A. Admin. Code § 10.8.2 et seq. .............. 19

OR rere 19

ER 8 ee 19

Miami Beach City Code § 62-128(d) ............ 10

N.Y. Admin. Code § 3:240-3:245 ............... 19

Se SEED UUPED ce ccccecesccccesvacs 19

Palm Beach County, Domestic Partner Tax Equity

Policy, PPM No. CW-P-082 ................ 10

S.F. Admin. Code § 12B.letseqg. .............. 19

S.F. Police Code § 3301-05 ................... 19

vill

West Palm Beach City Code § 62-66

OTHER AUTHORITIES

American Psychological Association, Resolution on

Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples (Aug.

2011), http://www.apa.org/about/policy/same-

SE Gee cébsabeutannensheeee see euueds 8,9

Tara Siegel Bernard, A Progress Report on Gay

Employee Health Benefits, New York Times,

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/a-

progress-report-on-yay-employee-health-

i cred aula wna ao aa ees waa ge ae ae ae 11

Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on

Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, Book III

(Chicago T.H. Flood & Company Legal

Te dks 6 ae oe he 28

David M. Brodzinsky, Expanding Resources for

Children III: Research-Based Best Practices in

Adoption by Gays and Lesbians, The Donaldson

Adoption Institute (Oct. 20, 2011),

http://adoptioninstitute.org/dai-press/new-

report-expanding-resources-for-children-iii-

research-based-best-practices-in-adoption-by-

EE rrr ee ne ae 26

Richard Florida & Gary Gates, The Brookings

Institution, Technology and Tolerance: The

Importance of Diversity to High-Technology

Growth (2001), www.brookings.edu/research/

reports/2001/ 06/technology-florida ........ 4,16

Vill

Freedom to Marry, America’s Mayors on Why They

Support the Freedom to Marry, http://www.

freedomtomarry.org/pages/americas-mayors-on-

why-they-support-the-freedom-to-marry ..... 10

Gary J. Gates, The Williams Institute, UCLA

School of Law, LGBT Parenting in the United

eS esas eae ee 25

Mark L. Hatzenbuelher, Katie A. McLaughlin,

Katherine M. Keyes & Deborah S. Hasin, The

Impact of Institutional Discrimination on

Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay and

Bisexual Populations: A Prospective Study, 100

Am. J. Publ. Health 452 (Mar. 2010) ......... 7

Human Rights Campaign & Equality Federation

Institute, Municipal Equality Index 2014:

A Nationwide Evaluation of Municipal Law

Dt cauecgeeendus cinekaweseeten eke 19, 20

Katie Kopansky & Jerry Cacciotti, Marsh &

McLennan Companies, The Cost of

Inconsistency: Quantifying the Economic Burden

to American Business from the Patchwork Quilt

of Marriage Laws (Oct. 2014) .............. 17

La. Dept. of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin

No. 13-024 (Sept. 13, 2013) at http://revenue.

louisiana.gov/forms/lawspolicies/RIB%2013-

ee 35

Christy Mallory & Brad Sears, Requiring Equal

Benefits for Domestic Partners, in When

Mandates Work: Raising Labor Standards at the

Local Level (Michael Reich et al., ed. 2014)... 19

ix

Mich. Op. Att’y Gen. 7171 (2005) .............. 14

Haniya H. Mir, Windsor and Its Discontents: State

Income Tax Implications for Same-Sex Couples,

64 Duke L. J. 53 (2014) at http://revenue.

louisiana.gov/forms/lawspolicies/RIB%2013-

=e aoa Rng 35

Theodore B. Olson, The Conservative Case for Gay

Marriage: Why Same-Sex Marriage is an

American Value,” Newsweek, http://www.

newsweek.com/conservative-case-gay-marriage-

70923 (Jan. 8, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.)

Tara Parker-Pope, How Hospitals Treat Same-Sex

Couples, New York Times (May 12, 2009 at

12:00 p.m.), http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/

2009/05/12/how-hospitals-treat-same-sex-

Dt csstccaneckbeteeeeeheaeees bona es 31

Brad Sears, Nan Hunter and Christy Mallory, The

Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law,

Documenting Discrimination on the Basis of

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in State

Employment (2009) ............220020005: 22

Liz Seaton, The Debate Over the Denial of Marriage

Rights and Benefits to Same-Sex Couples and

Their Children, 4 U.Md.L.J. Race Relig. Gender

es Ed cee tener eeecese es 12

James B. Stewart, Gay Marriage Bans May Come at

a Price, New York Times, May 11,2012 ...... 16

x

Therese M. Stewart and Mollie M. Lee, The Role of

Public Law Offices in Marriage Equality

Litigation, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 187

Ee eee ere ree ere ee 7,8,9

Transcript of Proceedings, Perry v. Schwarzenegger,

704 F Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .......... 8

U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Grossing Up Awards:

Why and Why Not, http://www.opm.gov/policy-

data-oversight/performance-management/

performance-management-cycle/rewarding/

grossing-up-awards/..................+44. 11

U.S. Social Security Admin., Program Operations

Manual System, GN 00210.005, at

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/Inx/020

Dy cay kineae ewe veuaesbadeet br aebeees 34

Oren Yaniv, Brooklyn Judge Refuses Lesbian

Couple’s Request to Adopt Own Son, NY Daily

News (Jan. 28, 2014 at 3:53p.m.),

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/

judge-refuses-lesbian-couple-request-adopt-son-

DP <i5ettisteees eeeeeee eens 32

1

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE'

Amici Curiae’ are 226 mayors and 40 cities from

across the country, from states that have accorded the

freedom to marry to all and those that have not. All

Amici know firsthand the importance of marriage to

their communities. Marriage makes the population

healthier, more productive and economically successful,

and all municipalities prosper when the right to marry

is equally available to all who live within their borders.

Municipalities, as the level of government most

closely connected to the community they serve, bear a

great burden when a targeted sector of their populace

is denied the right to marry. Amici attend to the daily

needs of their populace: they provide police and fire

services; they handle parks and recreation services,

transportation, housing, and a broad range of other

services. Some municipalities offer public health and

emergency medical services, and family and child

services. Under the leadership of mayors and

governing bodies, municipalities create and enforce

local laws and policies. They perform long-term

planning and provide the vision for the future of the

’ No party nor counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or

in part, and no person or entity, other than amici curiae or their

counsel, made any monetary contribution to fund the preparation

or submission of this brief. Respondents have filed blanket

consents to the filing of amicus briefs with the Clerk, and

Petitioners’ letter of consent is filed concurrently with this brief.

? Amici, which also include the United States Conference of

Mayors, Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, the International

Municipal Lawyers Association, and the National League of Cities,

are listed in the Appendix.

2

communities they serve. In performing these tasks,

Amici have all seen the benefits that marriage brings

to a community.

“Marriages cement families, families build

neighborhoods; strong neighborhoods create

strong communities; strong communities make

strong cities, and cities are the backbone of

America.” Houston Mayor Annise D. Parker,

January 20, 2012.

When the freedom to marry is denied, municipalities

are the first level of government to suffer the impact.

The amici cities have a long history of implementing

local measures designed to ensure the fair and equal

treatment of gay men and lesbians, and to provide a

welcoming environment for visitors. The USS.

Conference of Mayors has adopted a _ resolution

declaring its support for marriage equality for same-sex

couples, and all attendant rights such as family and

medical leave, tax equity, insurance and retirement

benefits, and its opposition to the enshrinement of

discrimination in the federal or state constitution.

Denying the freedom to marry is discrimination

that undermines local efforts. Amici are united in

urging this Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit and

affirm the freedom to marry for all Americans.

3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Sixth Circuit held that gay men and lesbians,

unlike all other individuals, have no fundamental] right

to marry. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6™ Cir.

2014). According to that court, whether or not this

discrete group can marry should be left to the “usually

reliable work of the state democratic processes.” 772

F.3d at 396. That is, the freedom to marry — for gay

men and lesbians but no others — should be placed “in

the hands of the state voters.” Id. at 403.

In an unbroken line of cases from Loving uv.

Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) to Zablocki v. Redhail,

434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978) and Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.

78, 99 (1987), this Court has held that the freedom to

marry is a fundamental right. Amici ask this Court to

expressly hold that this fundamental right applies

equally to same-sex couples and different-sex couples,

it cannot be withheld by popular vote or the whims of

a state legislature, and states cannot discriminatorily

refuse to respect lawful marriages performed in other

states. At least three grounds support this result.

First, excluding a certain class of people from

marriage undermines the dignity and respect that

government owes everyone. Gay and lesbian couples

live in all of our communities, where they raise

children, support each other in sickness and in health,

combine assets, buy homes and otherwise engage in all

the indicia of marriage. The stability of these family

units directly benefits municipalities. Marriage lessens

societal ills such as poverty, homelessness, and crime;

when it is denied to a discrete group, they — and their

children — are more likely to need the social services

that municipalities provide.

4

Equal treatment under the law, including the

freedom to marry, is also a boon to municipalities’ local

economies, which are largely reliant on the recruitment

of talent and diversity in the workforce and in their

population. “[Dliverse, inclusive communities that

welcome gays, immigrants, artists, and free-thinking

bohemians are ideal for nurturing creativity and

innovation, both keys to success in the new

technology.” Richard Florida & Gary Gates, The

Brookings Institution, Technology and Tolerance: The

Importance of Diversity to High-Technology Growth

(2001), www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2001/

06/technology-florida. Institutional discrimination at

the state level greatly impedes local governments’

ability to achieve that goal. Without marriage equality,

public entities face great difficulty attracting the kind

of talent that enriches their local economies,

diminishing their competitiveness vis-a-vis states (or

countries) that permit equal access to marriage.

Second, official recognition of marriage as a

fundamental right for all, including gay men and

lesbians, is crucial to municipalities’ ability to treat

everyone with equal dignity and respect. Long before

the current momentum towards ending gay couples’

exclusion from marriage, numerous cities had already

been at the forefront in enacting local laws and

regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of

sexual orientation, sometimes long before their state

counterparts. Those cities have seen the benefits of

treating their residents with equal dignity and respect,

a respect that must extend to their full and equal

enjoyment of constitutional rights such as the freedom

to marry.

5

Finally, marriage equality cannot have full meaning

unless it is recognized uniformly across state lines.

The second question before this Court — whether a

state may constitutionally refuse to recognize the

marriage of a same-sex couple validly married in

another state — should be answered with a resounding

“no.”

The right to travel is based on the premise that our

country is strengthened by the freedom that we all

have to move among the various states. It is hard to

imagine a greater obstruction to travel than a state law

declaring that a family will be dissolved upon entry

into another state. Amici, who seek to attract a diverse

and vibrant pool of employees, businesses and

residents, have a strong interest in ensuring that such

blatant constitutional violations are not tolerated by

this Court.

ARGUMENT

I. DISCRIMINATORY MARRIAGE LAWS

IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF

MUNICIPALITIES TO TREAT THEIR

RESIDENTS WITH DIGNITY AND

RESPECT.

A. Municipalities know firsthand the

importance of marriage to individual

dignity, prosperity and social stability.

Jerry Sanders, former mayor of San Diego,

California, in explaining his support of marriage

equality, said:

“Allowing loving and committed couples to join

in marriage has benefits not just for couples and

6

their families — but also for society. Marriage

encourages people to take responsibility for each

other, provides greater security for children, and

helps our country live up to its promises set

forth in our founding documents. These are

important values for a strong society, and we

should encourage them.”

It is well-documented that marriage brings financial

and emotional stability to populations, leading to

healthier communities that allow local governments to

thrive. Marriage is a “vital social institution.”

Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 948

(Mass. 2003).

“For those who choose to marry, and for their

children, marriage provides an abundance of

legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it

imposes weighty legal, financial and social

obligations.” Goodridge, id.

The benefits of marriage were recognized and

outlined by the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California, much as they have

been affirmed in over 60 state and federal rulings in

the past two years. The District Court found that

marriage benefits society because it organizes

individuals into “cohesive family units,” provides a

“realm of liberty, intimacy and free decision-making,”

creates “stable households, and _legitimat[izes]

children.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921,

962-63 (N.D. Cal. 2010). And marriage promotes

“physical and psychological health,” and increases

wealth and “psychological well-being.” Ibid.

7

Marriage also entails significant responsibilities,

which in turn benefits municipalities by lessening the

need for government support. The Perry District Court

found, for example, that marriage “assign[s]

individuals to care for one another and thus limit|s] the

public’s liability to care for the vulnerable,” and

“facilitate[s] property ownership.” Jbid. Marriage

“creates economic support obligations” between adults.

Ibid. Marriage ultimately forms an economic unit in

which two adults support each other not just

emotionally but financially and otherwise. The

“tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a

married couple’s children.” Jbid. Accordingly, when

couples are denied the freedom to marry, they and

their children lose all the benefits that marriage offers,

and are more likely to require the social services

municipalities provide.

Discriminatory marriage laws are themselves a

form of institutional discrimination that causes

psychological harm. Mark L. Hatzenbuelher, Katie A.

McLaughlin, Katherine M. Keyes & Deborah S. Hasin,

The Impact of Institutional Discrimination on

Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual

Populations: A Prospective Study, 100 Am. J. Publ.

Health 452-459 (Mar. 2010). Laws that discriminate

on the basis of sexual orientation contribute to

“minority stress,” which is “chronic social stress

resulting from experiencing prejudice, anticipating

further prejudice, harboring internalized homophobia,

and attempting to conceal or hide one’s sexual

orientation.” Therese M. Stewart and Mollie M. Lee,

The Role of Public Law Offices in Marriage Equality

Litigation, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 187, 191

(2013). Research has shown a strong correlation

8

between this kind of stress and health issues such as

anxiety disorders and increased suicide. /d. at 193.

Discriminatory marriage laws also encourage

private prejudice. The American Psychological

Association (APA) found that denying same-sex couples

the right to marry “stigmatizes same-sex relationships,

perpetuates the stigma historically attached to

homosexuality, and reinforces prejudice against

lesbian, gay and bisexual people.” In 2011, it

unanimously approved a resolution in support of full

marriage equality. American Psychological

Association, Resolution on Marriage Equality for Same-

Sex Couples (Aug. 2011), http://www.apa.org/about/

policy/same-sex.aspx. As then-Mayor of San Diego

Jerry Sanders testified during the Perry trial, “When

government tolerates discrimination against anyone for

any reason, it becomes an excuse for the public to do

the same thing.” Transcript of Proceedings at 1226,

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal.

2010).

These harms all lead to a greater need for services

and additional costs for municipalities. For example,

when employees miss work because of mental or

physical ailments linked to discrimination, the loss of

productivity harms municipalities as employers, and

lowers tax revenues because local businesses are less

productive. The Role of Public Law Offices in Marriage

Equality Litigation, supra at 195. When children stay

home from school because they fear bullying, school

districts lose funding and must spend time and money

to help the affected students. Id. When gay men and

lesbians seek medical attention after hate crimes, local

governments often pay the price as health-care

9

providers of last resort. Jd. Even the act of putting

marriage to a vote causes harm. The APA has found

that statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples the

right to marry “are a significant source of stress to the

lesbian, gay and bisexual residents of those states and

may have negative effects on their psychological well-

being.” American Psychological Association, Resolution

on Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples, supra.

Mayors across the country have observed the

benefits of assuring the freedom to marry without

discrimination. See, e.g, New York Mayor Bill De

Blasio (“Expanding marriage equality in New York has

not only helped our local economies, but also enabled

our City, schools, hospitals and businesses to treat all

couples and families with the respect they deserve — be

it with the birth or adoption of a child, or in dealing

with difficult medical issues. Everyone deserves this

basic dignity.”); Boston Mayor, the late Tom Menino

(“We’ve now had the freedom to marry in Boston for

almost eight years. Since then we’ve seen more same-

sex couples move to the city, and with that economic

development, urban revitalization, and a spirit of pride

and progress that are hallmarks of Boston.”); former

Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (“Having

enjoyed the freedom to marry in D.C. for nearly two

years now, I know firsthand that marriage makes a city

stronger.”); Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (failure to

enact marriage equality is “bad for Chicago, bad for

Illinois, and bad for our local economy and the jobs it

creates.”); Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer (“Our city

remains committed to equality, and we understand this

serves as an additional economic development tool as

our community looks to attract talented, creative

people and employers and create jobs for all of our

10

residents.”). See Freedom to Marry, America’s Mayors

on Why They Support the Freedom to Marry,

http://www .freedomtomarry.org/pages/ americas-

mayors-on-why-they-support-the-freedom-to-marry

(last visited Mar. 3, 2015).

B. In states that deny same-sex couples the

freedom to marry, municipalities offer

costly workarounds and _ inferior

substitutes to marriage.

In states that deny same-sex couples the freedom to

marry, many municipalities have devised

“workarounds” to alleviate the disparities between the

gay and lesbian population and the heterosexual

population. Municipalities should not have to engage

in these costly alternatives that would be unnecessary

were all couples able to enjoy the constitutional

freedom to marry.

1. “Grossing up” to make up for

additional tax liabilities.

Although municipalities often provide medical

benefits to the registered domestic partner of an

employee, the fair market value of the added insurance

for the domestic partner, who is not legally recognized

as a spouse, is taxed. Therefore, some municipalities

reimburse the employee for the additional tax liability

to offset the inequity. See, e.g., Palm Beach County,

Domestic Partner Tax Equity Policy, PPM No. CW-P-

082; City of Hallandale Beach Resolution No. 2014-140;

Miami Beach City Code § 62-128(d); West Palm Beach

City Code § 62-66; City of Wilton Manors Resolution

No. 2013-0069.

11

But this practice, called “grossing up,” is quite costly

for municipalities. The United States Office of

Personnel Management estimates that a net “grossing

up” award of $1,000 could cost the agency $1,713.80.

U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Grossing Up Awards: Why

and Why Not, http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-

oversight/performance-management/performance-

management-cycle/rewarding/grossing-up-awards/ (last

visited March 3, 2015). The New York Times estimates

that grossing up for an employee who incurs extra

taxes of $1,200 to $1,500 will cost the employer from

$2,000 to $2,500. Tara Siegel Bernard, A Progress

Report on Gay Employee Health Benefits, New York

Times, http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/a-

progress-report-on-gay-employee-health-benefits/ (last

visited Mar. 4, 2015).

2. Domestic partnerships.

Domestic partnerships are also costly and

complicated for a municipality to administer. While

marriage gives rise to a myriad of benefits and

incidents, these inadequate marriage proxies entail

administrative steps such as _ registration and

notification to each affected city department. This

administrative burden would not exist if everyone had

an equal right to exercise the freedom to marry.

These bureaucratic structures, moreover, amount to

“separate but unequal” family units that render these

families outliers within the community. Counties and

municipalities cannot approximate the hundreds of

benefits, protections and responsibilities available

through recognition of a marriage. The marital status

offers, for example, a spousal presumption of

parentage, protections for surviving spouses through

12

intestacy, protections for children of a couple in a

divorce proceeding including both custody and financial

support, federal and state benefits reserved for

spouses, and others.

Most importantly, these cobbled-together

protections cannot approximate the dignity, societal

recognition, security and portability enjoyed by those

couples who are presently permitted to marry.

“[O|nly marriage, legally respected and honored

when entered irto by same-sex couples under

law the same way it is for heterosexual couples,

can provide the protections of marriage for

families headed by same-sex couples.” Liz

Seaton, The Debate Over the Denial of Marriage

Rights and Benefits to Same-Sex Couples and

Their Children, 4 U.Md.L.J. Race Relig. Gender

& Class 127 (2004).

The balkanization of marriages, domestic

partnerships and civil unions amounts to an

unworkable and demeaning approach to civic life. In

Kerrigan v. Dept. of Pub. Health, 289 Conn. 135 (2008),

the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the state’s

classification of family units into same-sex civil unions

compared to marriages for different-sex couples. The

Court explained:

“(Wle reject the trial court’s conclusion that

marriage and civil unions are ‘separate’ but

‘equal’ legal entities...Although marriage and

civil unions do embody the same legal rights

under our law, they are by no means ‘equal.’

* * * We do not doubt that the civil union law

was designed to benefit same sex couples by

13

providing them with legal rights they previously

did not have. [T]he very existence of the

classification gives credence to the perception

that separate treatment is warranted for the

same illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the

past discrimination in the first place. Despite

the truly laudable effort of the legislature in

equalizing the legal rights afforded same sex

and opposite sex couples, there is no doubt that

civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society

than marriage. We therefore conclude that the

plaintiffs have alleged a _ constitutionally

cognizable injury, that is, the denial of the right

to marry a same sex partner.” 289 Conn. at 152

(footnote omitted).

Similarly, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct.

2675 (2013), this Court recognized the destruction to

children of living in a “second-tier marriage.” Id. at

2694. Windsor was addressing a marriage between a

same-sex couple that was not being recognized by the

federal government, but the impact is the same: Living

in an unrecognized family form “humiliates tens of

thousands of children now being raised by same-sex

couples.” Ibid. Treating relationships between same-

sex partners differently “makes it even more difficult

for the children to understand the integrity and

closeness of their own family and its concord with other

families in their community and in their daily lives.”

Ibid.

See also In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757, 845-

846 (2008) (“affording same-sex couples access only to

the separate institution of domestic partnership, and

denying such couples access to the established

14

institution of marriage, properly must be viewed as

impinging upon the right of those couples to have their

family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal

to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex

couples”).

3. State pushbacks on municipalities’

efforts.

Some state marriage bans are so broad that the

municipalities within those states cannot provide even

these separate systems. At least eighteen states have

extended their discriminatory bans by refusing to

create or recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships,

or any other alternative to marriage. See, e.g., Ky.

Const. § 233A (“A legal status identical or substantially

similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals

shall not be valid or recognized.”)

The City of Kalamazoo, Michigan has faced such a

state backlash. It had been offering health care

benefits to all employees and their domestic partners

when Michigan voters subsequently passed a

constitutional amendment that restricted a marriage

“or similar union” to one man and one woman. Mich.

Const. art. 1, § 25 (emphasis added). The state

concluded “the City’s policy of offering benefits to same-

sex domestic partners violates the amendment’s

prohibition against recognizing any ‘similar union.”

Mich. Op. Att’y Gen. 7171 (2005). Although Kalamazoo

announced its intention to discontinue the benefits

plan, it was still challenged in litigation. Ultimately,

in 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed that

domestic partner benefits violated the state’s expanded

marriage ban. Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc., et al. v.

Governor of Michigan, 732 N.W.2d 139 (Mich. Ct. App.

15

2007). Determined to provide benefits to their

committed-but-unmarried employees, Kalamazoo and

other Michigan public entities adopted benefit plans

that permitted an employee to designate another adult

an “Other Qualified Adult” (“OQA”). In direct

response, the Michigan Legislature passed a bill

prohibiting these OQA plans. 2011 Mich. Pub. Acts,

Act 297, § 15.583.

Although this OQA ban was recently declared

unconstitutional by a federal district court,°

Kalamazoo’s eight-year struggle is the kind of

resistance that a municipality should not have to face.

Yet the Sixth Circuit’s decision promises endless such

protracted battles for municipalities everywhere.

Because marriage is regulated in the first instance at

the state level, so long as a state denies marriage to

same-sex couples, municipalities within those states

can only carry these marriage workarounds so far —

and often in the face of constant resistance from the

state — in their efforts to provide same-sex couples and

their families with at least a modicum of the benefits

available to their different-sex counterparts.

C. Marriage discrimination hampers

municipalities’ economic growth and

their ability to recruit and retain

talented employees.

For municipalities as employers, the work

environment is particularly important as _ public

entities cannot offer the kind of compensation packages

* Bassett v. Snyder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159253 (E.D. Mich. Nov.

12, 2014).

_ rrr

16

available in the private sector. Instead, fairness and

equality in the workplace and quality of life benefits

are critical for recruiting and retaining the best

employees.

Further, the most dynamic American city economies

are driven by technology and innovation. In the area of

high technology, for example, it has been found that

diversity, including the presence of gay men and

lesbians, is key to attracting the talent and businesses

necessary to thrive: “Gays ... signal a diverse and

progressive environment that fosters the creativity and

innovation necessary for success in high tech industry.”

Richard Florida & Gary Gates, The Brookings

Institution, Technology and Tolerance: The Importance

of Diversity to High-Technology Growth 2 (2001).

Fostering this sort of diversity attracts to the

municipality both the desired employees and the

businesses that want to hire them. Companies support

marriage equality because

“they understand that marriage equality is a

mechanism for them to attract and retain

talent... it signals a kind of openness to people

who are different. It sends a signal to people,

straight or gay, that this is a place where they

can potentially thrive. That’s especially critical

for companies that rely on people who have to be

creative, entrepreneurial and innovative.”

James B. Stewart, Gay Marriage Bans May

Come at a Price, New York Times, May 11, 2012,

at Bl.

In October 2014, Marsh & McLennan released an

exhaustive report quantifying the impact of the

17

“patchwork quilt of marriage laws” on business. It

noted:

“With each passing year, more employers are

advancing inclusive benefits policies for their

employees. In 2013 among large corporations,

already 67% that offered health benefits also

offered equal access to benefits, and that

number is growing by 3% per year. Small and

mid-sized companies are adding these benefits

at rates of 8% per year. Without a ruling by the

Supreme Court affirming freedom to marry

nationally, we expect the talent market

consensus to consolidate, and a greater portion

of employers will push to equalize benefits and

tax treatment for same-sex households.

Administrative and tax burdens will grow.”

Katie Kopansky & Jerry Cacciotti, Marsh &

McLennan Companies, The Cost of

Inconsistency: Quantifying the Economic Burden

to American Business from the Patchwork Quilt

of Marriage Laws 15 (Oct. 2014).

Ultimately, inconsistent marriage laws create

administrative burdens, and discriminatory marriage

laws hamper the ability of municipalities to recruit and

retain diverse, talented workforces.

18

Il. THE FREEDOM TO MARRY IS A

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR EVERYONE,

INCLUDING GAY MEN AND LESBIANS.

A. Municipalities have witnessed positive

changes arising from their longstanding

protections against sexual orientation

discrimination, and recognizing the

fundamental freedom to marry would

bring about similar positive changes.

Mayors and municipalities are often at the forefront

of local government efforts to ensure that gay men and

lesbians are treated with dignity and respect. In 1984,

the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution

calling for the legal protection of gay men and lesbians,

followed by dozens of cities adopting such resolutions

and laws. In 1996, the City Council of Los Angeles

opposed a state assembly bill, which was ultimately

defeated, that would have precluded recognition of

marriages between same-sex couples. Los Angeles

also passed resolutions opposing the marriage

discrimination voter initiatives in 2000 and 2008.

Long before any state recognized marriage equality,

and even before any state recognized domestic

partnerships, many cities, including Los Angeles, San

Francisco, Chicago and New York, devised laws and

regulations to protect against sexual orientation

discrimination at the municipal level. Starting in the

1970s, these and other cities began to adopt laws and

policies to eliminate discrimination against, and

equalize the status of, lesbians and gay men. Today,

many cities have municipal codes prohibiting sexual

orientation discrimination in employment, housing and

public accommodations and prohibiting employment

19

discrimination by City contractors. See, e.g., L.A.

Admin. Code §§ 4.404.1, 4.404.2, 4.860. 10.8.2 et seq.;

L.A. City Charter §§ 104 and 501; N.Y. Admin. Code

§§ 3:240-3:245, 8-107; S.F. Police Code §§ 3301-05, S.F.

Admin. Code § 12B.1 et seq.

When these provisions outlawing sexual orientation

discrimination were first enacted, they were novel and

groundbreaking; yet today, cities across the nation

have such laws.

Cities implementing these protections have seen

extraordinarily positive changes. For example, San

Francisco’s Equal Benefits Ordinance has increased the

number of employees who are offered domestic partner

benefits as well as the number of insurance companies

that offer plans with such benefgts. And it has helped

private companies recruit and retain talented

employees. Christy Mallory & Brad Sears, Requiring

Equal Benefits for Domestic Partners, in When

Mandates Work: Raising Labor Standards at the Local

Level 158-59 (Michael Reich et al., ed. 2014).

Similarly, while Cincinnati once had “the most anti-

gay local law our country has ever seen,” which caused

the city to lose “close to $50 million in Convention

business, people moved away and [its] image as a

world-class city suffered tremendously,” that law was

repealed in 2004 with great positive results. Chris

Seelbach, Councilman, City of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Human Rights Campaign & Equality Federation

Institute, Municipal Equality Index 2014: A

Nationwide Evaluation of Municipal Law 14 (2014).

Since the repeal, Cincinnati has “taken every necessary

step to be an LGBT-inclusive city. ... Steps like

extending equal partner health benefits to city

20

employees, creating an LGBT police liaison and

requiring all city contractors to agree in writing to an

inclusive non-discrimination law.” Jd. Cincinnati is

“now a leading voice in the fight for LGBT equality,”

and “for the first time in sixty years, [its] population is

increasing. And [its] urban core is thriving with good

paying jobs, exciting bars and restaurants, diverse

housing and a top-notch park system great for

families.” Ibid.

Simply put, treating all Americans with dignity and

respect under the law is not only the Constitution’s

command, it is good for communities and good for the

country.

B. Gay men and lesbians share the same

fundamental right to marry recognized

by this Court again and again.

While a state validly regulates the incidents of

marriage that directly impact its governance, such as

the distribution of property and responsibility for

children, this authority has never given a state license

to trample upon the civil rights of those who wish to

exercise them. This Court has repeatedly intervened

when a state’s regulation of marriage intrudes upon

constitutional] rights.

In Zablocki, supra, the Court acknowledged that

marriage is a matter of state domestic policy, but

readily overturned a state law that prohibited marriage

by an indigent parent who owed child support. 434

U.S. at 380. In Turner, supra, the Court recognized

that a state could restrict an inmate’s constitutional

rights, but nonetheless struck as “facially invalid” its

ban on inmate marriages. 482 U.S. at 99. And in

21

Loving — the dispositive case here — the Court accepted

that marriage was a “social relation” subject to state

regulation, but held that the state power was “not

unlimited,” and thus struck a ban on interracial

marriage as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

388 U.S. at 8.

Despite this authority, the Sixth Circuit found that

marriages between persons of the same sex are

different than other marriages because they are not

“deeply rooted” in our nation’s “history and tradition.”

But the same was true of interracial marriages in

Loving, marriages by parents owing child support in

Zablocki and marriages by inmates in Turner. The

Court’s emphasis in those cases on the right — rather

than the attributes of the individuals exercising the

right — is necessary and proper. It is the “history and

tradition” of marriage itself, not the particular

individuals choosing it, that renders marriage a

fundamental right.

Likewise, Amici urge this Court to recognize that it

is the ultimate freedom to marry — not the sexual

orientation or gender of the individuals wishing to

exercise the freedom — that is the fundamental right

here.

22

C. In contrast to the positive changes in

municipalities that openly recognize the

dignity and respect owed to the gay and

lesbian population generally, permitting

gay people’s freedom to marry to be

withheld by popular vote injures and

stigmatizes same-sex couples and

undermines their dignity and ability to

participate fully in society.

“One marker of the hostility and animus directed

towards LGBT Americans is the proliferation of

attempts to use state and local ballot measures to

repeal or preclude protection against employment

discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender

identity...[P]roponents of workplace equality for the

LGBT minority have had to respond — more frequently

than any other group ~— to repeated, well-funded

campaigns to erect barriers against basic civil rights

protections.” Brad Sears, Nan Hunter and Christy

Mallory, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law,

Documenting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual

Orientation and Gender Identity in State Employment

(2009).

Conditioning fundamental rights on a group’s

popularity with voters is demeaning to the targeted

group and toxic to the relationship between the

unpopular group and the general population. The

uncertainty caused when a group of people is targeted

in this way is disruptive for all municipalities; in

contrast, marriage provides the kind of stability that

allows a municipality to thrive.

California’s Proposition 8 was a prime example of

what happens when the rights of gay men and lesbians

23

may at any time be subject to a vote. During this

turbulent time in California history, marriage equality

was recognized by the California Supreme Court in

May 2008*, resulting in more than 18,000 same-sex

couples becoming lawfully married. But six months

later, in November 2008, Proposition 8 took that right

away, and gay men and lesbians were again barred

from getting married. This resulted in a “crazy quilt

of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone.”

Theodore B. Olson, The Conservative Case for Gay

Marriage: Why Same-Sex Marriage is an American

Value, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/

conservative-case-gay-marriage-70923 (Jan. 8, 2010 at

7:00 p.m.). Marriage equality has since been restored

and settled in California, but, as Olson wrote at the

time:

“(T]here are now three classes of Californians:

heterosexual couples who can get married,

divorced and remarried, if they wish; same-sex

couples who cannot get married but can live

together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex

couples who are now married but who, if they

divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational

system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot

stand.” Ibid.

Such a “crazy quilt” imposes a burden on

municipalities when they are forced to address such

fluctuations in the structures of their families — one of

the building blocks of society. The uncertainly caused

when a discrete group of people is targeted in this way

is disruptive for all municipalities; in contrast,

* In Re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).

24

marriage provides the kind of stability that allows

municipalities to thrive.

Even in states that currently embrace marriage

equality, the idea that the marriage right could be lost

in an election denigrates the marital status of those

same-sex couples allowed to marry because it can

always be taken away. Where the risk of marriage

equality vanishing arises with each election, gay men

and lesbians must live with the specter that their right

to marry can be whisked away at any time. That is

precisely the opposite of the stability that marriage —

and fundamental rights — are supposed to bring.

D. The Sixth Circuit’s decision contravenes

the respect and dignity municipalities

owe their residents.

Amici adopt the arguments made by the parties as

to the infirmity of the Sixth Circuit’s decision, and

focus here on specific aspects most germane to

municipalities.

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion displays an elemental

lack of respect for gay men and lesbians. If this Court

affirms that decision, thus integrating this disrespect

into binding case law, the impact on the gay and

lesbian community and the municipalities in which

they live would be very harmful.

25

1. The problems the Sixth Circuit posits

would arise in a society without

marriage for heterosexual couples

apply with equal force to the same-

sex couples of today who must live

without marriage.

After discussing a supposed rationale for the laws at

issue — the “responsible procreation” theory that has

been rejected by virtually every reviewing court that

has heard it — the Sixth Circuit posited:

“Imagine a society without marriage.” 772 F.3d

at 404.

A society without marriage, the Court found, would

lead to a host of problems resulting from the “absence

of rules about how to handle the natural effects of

male-female intercourse: children.” Jbid.

But the court failed to recognize that the chaos it

imagined would continue to be imposed on the families

of same-sex couples by its own decision, leaving gay men

and lesbians without marriage whenever the electorate

votes to ban it.

While the Sixth Circuit’s concerns revolved around

biological children and questions of which parents

should be responsible for which children, ibid., the

undeniable reality is that nearly twenty percent of

same-sex couples in the United States are raising

children under the age of 18. Gary J. Gates, The

Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, LGBT

Parenting in the United States, at 1 (Feb. 2013). Most

of those children are biologically related to one of their

parents. Id. at 3, fig. 4. Gay and lesbian families also

account for a growing number of foster adoptions. Over

26

fifty percent of lesbian and gay parents adopted

children from the child welfare system, and sixty

percent of adopted children are of a different race than

their parents. David M. Brodzinsky, The Donaldson

Adoption Institute, Expanding Resources for Children

IIT: Research-Based Best Practices in Adoption by Gays

and Lesbians (Oct. 20, 2011), http://adoption

institute.org/dai-press/new-report-expanding-resources-

for-children-iii-research-based-best-practices-in-

adoption-by-gays-and-lesbians/ (last visited March 3,

2015).

Gay men and lesbians are raising children —

biological, adoptive and foster — and these families and

children are just as worthy of the rules and stability

that marriage brings. The Sixth Circuit’s willingness

to leave gay men and lesbians in the chaos it contended

would result if different-sex couples did not have

marriage shows an indifference toward the children of

same-sex couples. It should not be tolerated by this

Court.

2. The Sixth Circuit’s willingness to

make same-sex couples “wait and

see” if their constitutional right to

marry will eventually be recognized

should not be accepted.

The Sixth Circuit alternatively opined that a state

might want to “wait and see before changing a norm,”

defined as the “traditional” marriage between a man

and a woman. 772 F.3d at 404. It found the best

solution was to allow “state democratic forces to fix the

problems” — yet those same “democratic forces” are

excluding gay men and lesbians from the benefits and

responsibilities of marriage.

27

This cavalier disregard for ending marriage

discrimination should not be accepted. Every day of

denial of a constitutional right, and particularly any

delay in being able to marry and share in the tangible

and intangible protections and _ responsibilities

marriage brings, matters. Because the need to secure

the fundamental right of gay men and lesbians to

marry is urgent for the residents and employees of

municipalities, it is urgent for Amici.

Public entities in states that do not recognize

marriage equality increasingly are filled with families

like that of petitioners April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse:

two women in a long-term, committed relationship,

both state-licensed foster parents, providing a “stable

and loving home for several children, two of whom have

special needs.” Pet. pp. 5-6. For their family,

Michigan’s marriage discrimination means these

women are unable to marry, nor may they both be the

legal parent of any of their children. Each parent is a

legal stranger to one or more of the children they are

raising. A car accident or similar life event could tear

their family apart.

Requiring these women to wait for inchoate “state

democratic forces” to decide whether they will ever be

able to make their family whole is not something this

Court should tolerate.

28

Il, NON-RECOGNITION LAWS VIOLATE THE

RIGHT TO TRAVEL OF SAME-SEX

COUPLES BY TREATING THEM AS

LEGAL STRANGERS AND INCREASING

THEIR NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES

UPON ENTRY INTO A DIFFERENT STATE

The employees and residents of municipalities

frequently travel to other states for work or pleasure,

and sometimes relocate to take a new job or be near

family. But when a committed, legally married same-

sex couple and their children enter a state whose laws

expressly refuse to acknowledge their marriage, their

marital and parental relationships are effectively

dissolved for the length of their stay. The denial of

rights provided by state law to different-sex married

couples creates obstacles for same-sex couples

attempting to provide their family with care and

support, and forces them to rely instead on public

services provided by local municipalities. Such couples

are thereby penalized for exercising their constitutional

right of interstate travel, resulting in uncertainty and

loss of dignity.

“(Flor the peace of the world, for the prosperity

of its respective communities, for the well-being

of families, for virtue in social life, for good

morals, for religion, for everything held dear by

the race of man in common, it is necessary that

there should be one universal rule whereby to

determine whether parties are to be regarded as

married or not.” Joel Prentiss Bishop, New

Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and

Separation, Book III, §856 at p. 369 (Chicago

T.H. Flood & Company Lega! Publishers) (1891);

29

see also In re Estate of Lenherr, 314 A.2d 255,

258 (Pa. 1974) (in an age of easy mobility, it

would create inordinate confusion if a marriage

valid in one state were held invalid elsewhere).

This Court recognizes a “virtual unconditional

personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us

all” to “be free to travel throughout the length and

breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or

regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this

movement.” Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498 (1999),

citing Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 643

(1969). This right is violated by a state law “when it

uses any classification which serves to penalize the

exercise of that right.” Atty. General of N.Y. v. Soto-

Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986).

The Sixth Circuit found the non-recognition laws at

issue do not violate the right to travel because they do

not prohibit movement in and out of the state. 772

F.3d at 420. But this Court has never required “a

direct obstruction” to ingress and egress to find that a

state law violates the right to travel. See, e.g., Toomer

v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 385 (1948) (South Carolina

statute requiring nonresident fishermen to pay $2500

fee while residents pay only $25). And while a same-

sex couple may be free to travel with their family to a

non-recognition state, the burdens of losing legal

recognition of their relationships continue as long as

the couple resides in that state, rendering it more

extreme than the waiting-period laws struck in cases

such as Saenz v. Roe, supra, 526 U.S. 489 (invalidating

waiting period for newly arrived residents to obtain

state welfare benefits).

30

Where a state’s exercise of its police powers is used

to impact travel, the Court has declared such actions

unconstitutional, consistently striking state laws

intended to discourage certain people from living

within the state. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Thompson, supra,

394 U.S. at 629-30 (Connecticut law limiting welfare

benefits for new residents); Memorial Hospital uv.

Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 269 (1974) (Arizona

statute requiring one-year residency for entitlement to

free medical care).

Non-recognition laws similarly impact migration,

requiring same-sex couples to surrender their marital

status as the price of settling in the state for any

reason — whether to pursue a new job opportunity, to

care for an elderly or ill relative, or simply to make a

fresh start. The right to travel is rendered largely

meaningless for married same-sex couples when it is

conditioned on making such a sacrifice. “It is difficult

to conceive of a more effective method of ensuring that

persons do not enter or remain in a locality.” Lozano v.

City of Hazelton, 620 F.3d 170, 220-21 (3rd Cir. 2010).

And when same-sex couples are deterred from settling

in a non-recognition state, local municipalities are

hindered in their quest for talented employees and

entrepreneurial business interests.

Not knowing whether one will be treated as married

when one moves or travels forces married couples to

anticipate traumatic events such as illness or death

that might occur while traveling, and to take costly and

burdensome legal steps to try to replicate family rights

that travel automatically with different-sex married

couples. Yet, those efforts may still be insufficient to

provide protection against the governmental and

31

institutional discrimination promoted by

non-recognition laws like the ones at issue.

One illustration of how such discrimination

penalizes traveling same-sex couples occurred in 2007,

when Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond traveled with

their three children to Florida. Lisa suffered an

aneurysm and was rushed to the hospital. Janice was

not permitted to see her, despite providing the hospital

with documentation of their relationship and

previously prepared health care proxies. Janice was

told Florida law did not consider her family. By the

time she prevailed, hours had passed and Lisa was

unconscious; she died later that day. Tara Parker-

Pope, How Hospitals Treat Same-Sex Couples, New

York Times (May 12, 2009 at 12:00 p.m.),

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/how-hospitals-

treat-same-sex-couples/.

While Janice and Lisa were unable to marry in their

home state of Washington, their experience is

something currently-married same-sex couples must be

prepared to face. It shows how even the most

determined efforts to duplicate the legal rights that

come automatically to different-sex married couples

may be futile in the face of implacable discrimination.

On top of the concerns raised by traveling to a

non-recognition state, same-sex couples relocating to

such a state are exposed to significant harm by the

confusing “crazy quilt” of laws concerning the

recognition of their marriages. If they establish a

domicile in a non-recognition state, the effective

dissolution of their marriage gives rise to complications

in matters such as divorce, estate administration and

access to state and federal benefits, potentially leaving

32

one or both spouses dependent on public services. Such

complications can have particularly harsh results when

child custody and visitation issues arise. Should the

relationship of the same-sex couple end while living in

a non-recognition state, for example, the non-biological

or non-adoptive parent of a child of that marriage may

be treated by that state’s courts as an unrelated third

party. See, e.g., Stadter v. Siperko, 661 S.E.2d 494,

497-99 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) (lesbian non-parent denied

visitation over biological parent’s objection because she

was unable to show denial of visitation would be

detrimental to the child’s welfare).

Attempts to protect against such an eventuality

may be hampered by the inconsistency in state

marriage laws. Last year, a New York judge denied the

request of a lesbian mother to adopt the child born to

her spouse. Although New York law viewed both

women as a legal parent based on their valid marriage,

the couple wanted their rights legally established

should they travel to a non-recognition state. The

judge, however, ruled adoption was not warranted

given their existing legal parent-child relationships.

Oren Yaniv, Brooklyn Judge Refuses Lesbian Couple’s

Request to Adopt Own Son, NY Daily News (Jan. 28,

2014 at 3:53p.m.), http://www.nydailynews.com/new-

york/brooklyn/judge-refuses-lesbian-couple-request-

adopt-son-article-1.1594320. Should this couple ever

travel to a non-recognition state, they will risk having

those legal bonds questioned should any life event

occur.

For example, if the birth mother died while in the

non-recognition state, her spouse could be faced with

the very real possibility that a judge could order their

33

child — born to a legally married couple — live with a

distant relative or in foster care while the non-birth

parent returns to her domicile state to seek legal

recourse and regain custody of her child. That child, in

the interim, may suffer unnecessary fear, anxiety and

insecurity related to the loss of one parent and

separation from the second.

It was just such a potentiality that led a different

New York judge to allow an adoption under similar

circumstances. Matter of Sebastian, 879 N.Y.S.2d. 677

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009) (granting adoption because it was

the only option “that will ensure recognition of both

Ingrid and Mona as [Sebastian’s) legal parents

throughout the entire United States.”). Same-sex

couples should not be forced to go through this

additional step of adopting their own child nor should

they risk losing custody—even temporarily—because

they travel to a state that refuses to accept them as a

family. Similarly, an individual legally married in a

marriage equality state should not have to worry his or

her parental status will be questioned by a school

official, medical provider, law enforcement authority or

emergency personnel merely because the family travels

or relocates to a state that refuses to recognize valid

same-sex marriages.

But that is exactly the situation some of the Ohio

plaintiffs are left in by the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

Because Nicole and Pam Yorksmith, lawfully married

in California, are unable to have both their names

listed on their children’s birth certificates, they fear

Pam, the non-biological mother, will not be “recognized

with authority to approve medical care, deal with

childcare workers and teachers, travel alone with their

34

[children], and otherwise address all the issues parents

must resolve.” Henry v. Himes, 14 F.Supp. 3d 1036,

1042 (S.D. Ohio 2014). They are forced to consider that

should anything happen to Nicole, their children will

be left in the care of the local municipality rather than

that of their other mother.

The Constitution affords parents significant rights

in the care and control of their children, and these

fundamental rights may be curtailed only under

exceptional circumstances. Troxel v. Granville, 530

U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (liberty interest in care, custody and

control of one’s children is “perhaps the oldest

fundamental liberty interest recognized by this Court”).

Non-recognition laws interfere with these valued

parental rights.

Everyday financial and administrative issues arise

for married same-sex couples who relocate to

non-recognition states as well. For example, they lose

certain Social Security and veterans’ benefits that by

statute are based on the law of the state in which they

live.° Post-Windsor, same-sex married couples may file

joint federal tax returns®; however, those couples

° See, U.S. Social Security Admin., Program Operations Manual

System, GN 00210.005, at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/

poms.nsf/inx/0200210005 (last visited March 3, 2015).

®° See Rev. Rul. 2013-17, 2013-38 IRB 201 (Sept. 13, 2013). Noting

the state-of-celebration rule had been successfully applied to

common-law marriages for over fifty years, the IRS concluded that,

“(gliven our increasingly mobile society,” it was important to have

a “uniform rule of recognition that can be applied with certainty .

.. for all federal tax purposes.” Jd. at 10. The I.R.S. recognized the

confusion arising from “marriages possibly appearing and

35

lawfully married in one state but living in a

non-recognition state have a complicated and expensive

task in filing their taxes. They must fill out five tax

returns: two individual state returns, one joint federal

return, and two individual federal returns that will not

be filed but are necessary to calculate individual state

liabilities.’ These couples face costs, confusion and

frustration different-sex couples do not encounter.

In finding the Tennessee non-recognition law did

not violate the right to travel, the Sixth Circuit

asserted “the law does not punish out-of-state new

residents in relation to its own born and bred .. .

because the State has not expanded the definition of

marriage to include gay couples in all settings, whether

the individuals just arrived in Tennessee or descend

from Andrew Jackson.” 772 F.3d at 420. Essentially,

the court held the right to travel was not implicated

because Tennessee discriminates against all same-sex

couples equally. This rationale minimizes the injuries

non-recognition laws inflict on lawfully married same-

sex couples who travel to or settle in such states. The

statutes treat these couples in a dissimilar way than

different-sex couples, affirmatively penalize their

residency by nullifying their marital status for state-

law purposes, and impose unique harms that are

disappearing each time a taxpayer moves.” Haniya H. Mir,

Windsor and Its Discontents: State Income Tax Implications for

Same-Sex Couples, 64 Duke L. J. 53 (2014) at http://revenue.

louisiana.gov/forms/lawspolicies/RIB%2013-024. pdf.

” See e.g., La. Dept. of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin No.

13-024 (Sept. 13, 2013) at http://revenue.louisiana.gov/

forms/lawspolicies/RIB%2013-024.pdf (last visited Mar. 3, 2015).

36

related to, but not the same as, the harms experienced

by couples the state bars from marriage. This

differentiation discourages same-sex couples from

traveling or relocating to, or remaining in, non-

recognition states, potentially lessening the diverse

pool from which municipalities seek to draw their

residents and employees.

Justice O’Connor once commented, “[I|t is difficult

to imagine a right more essential to the Nation as a

whole than the right to establish residence in a new

State.” Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 76-77 (1982),

O’Connor, J., concurring. For that reason, laws

designed to dissuade individuals from moving to a state

cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Saenz v. Roe,

supra, 526 U.S. at 503-06. By deterring same-sex

couples from traveling or moving to states where their

legal rights and relationships will not be honored, and

penalizing those who do, non-recognition laws violate

the constitutional right to travel.

CONCLUSION

As this Court has recognized, the drafters of the

Constitution were not specific in outlining “the

components of liberty in its manifold possibilities”

because they “knew times can blind us to certain truths

and later generations can see that laws once thought

necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578-579 (2003).

This case brings out “certain truths” to which the

law has been blind. When the electorate excludes a

minority from something as important as the freedom

to marry and equal legal respect for their families,

federal courts — and this Court in particular — must

37

step in. Amici submit that the class singled out for

disparate treatment here — gay men and lesbians —

should be protected now.

Amici, who include Mayors and municipalities, are

all united in respectfully requesting that this Court

reverse the judgment of the Sixth Circuit, and hold

that states may not deny gay and lesbian couples the

freedom to marry nor the equal respect for their lawful

marriages.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael N. Feuer

City Attorney of Los Angeles

James P. Clark

Thomas H. Peters

Blithe Smith Bock

Counsel of Record

Lisa S. Berger

Juliann Anderson

200 No. Main Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

(213) 978-6936

Blithe. Bock@lacity.org

Dennis Herrera

City Attorney of San Francisco

Ronald P. Flynn

Christine Van Aken

Mollie M. Lee

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 554- 4290

Mollie.Lee@sfgov.org

38

Stephen R. Patton

Attorney for the City of Chicago

Corporation Counsel

City of Chicago Department of Law

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 744-7764

Zachary E. Carter

Attorney for Bill de Blasio,

Mayor of the City of New York

Corporation Counsel for

the City of New York

100 Church Street

New York, New York 10007

(212) 356-1000

APPENDIX

a a a ee ee

i

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A List of Amici ................. App. 1

App. 1

APPENDIX A

AMICI

Mayors for the Freedom to Marry is a non-partisan

group of 500 mayors from 45 states who support the

freedom to marry for same-sex couples and full and

equal respect for lawful marriages across the United

States. Currently chaired by Mayor Kevin Faulconer of

San Diego, Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles, Mayor

Michael Nutter of Philadelphia, Mayor Annise Parker

of Houston, Mayor Kasim Reed of Atlanta, and Mayor

Greg Stanton of Phoenix, Mayors for the Freedom to

Marry lead culturally, racially, and geographically

diverse cities — and share the belief, based on their

experience and understanding of their constituents and

communities, that ending marriage discrimination will

strengthen families, businesses, cities, and the

country. Mayors for the Freedom to Marry is a program

of Freedom to Marry, the campaign to win marriage

nationwide.

The United States Conference of Mayors is the

official non-partisan organization of cities with

populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,393 such

cities in the country today. Each city is represented in

the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor.

The primary roles of The U.S. Conference of Mayors

are to promote the development of effective national

urban/suburban policy, strengthen federal-city

relationships, ensure that federal policy meets urban

needs, provide mayors with leadership and

management tools; and create a forum in which mayors

App. 2

can share ideas and information. Conference members

speak with a united voice on organizational policies

and goals.

The International Municipal Lawyers Association

(IMLA) is a non-profit, nonpartisan professional

organization consisting of more than 2500 members.

The membership is comprised of local government

entities, including cities, counties and subdivision

thereof, as represented by their chief legai officers,

state municipal leagues, and individual attorneys.

IMLA serves as an international clearinghouse of legal

information and cooperation on municipal legal

matters. Established in 1935, IMLA is the oldest and

largest association of attorneys representing United

States municipalities, counties and special districts.

IMLA’s mission is to advance the _ responsible

development of municipal! law through education and

advocacy by providing the collective viewpoint of local

governments around the country on legal issues before

the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals,

and in state supreme and appellate courts.

The National League of Cities is the oldest and

largest organization representing municipal

governments throughout the United States. Its mission

is to strengthen and promote cities as centers of

opportunity, leadership, and governance. Working in

partnership with 49 State municipal leagues, NLC

serves as a national advocate for the more than 19,000

cities, villages, and towns it represents.

App. 3

Mayor Matthew Appelbaum, Boulder, Colorado

Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Ridgewood, New Jersey

Mayor Richard Bain, City of Pepper Pike, Ohio

Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Mayor Ralph Becker, Salt Lake City, Utah

Mayor William Bell, Durham, North Carolina

Mayor Peter Benjamin, Garrett Park, Maryland

Mayor David Berger, Lima, Ohio

Mayor David Bieter, Boise, Idaho

Mayor John Birkner, Westwood, New Jersey

Mayor Robert Blais, Lake George, New York

Mayor Bill Bogaard, Pasadena, California

Mayor Muriel Bowser, Washington, D.C.

Mayor Noam Bramson, New Rochelle, New York

Mayor Edward Brennan, Merchantville, New Jersey

Mayor Michael Brennan, Portland, Maine

Mayor Barry Brickner, Farmington Hills, Michigan

Mayor David Burton, Malvern, Pennsylvania

Mayor Tom Butt, Richmond, California

Mayor Pete Buttigieg, South Bend, Indiana

Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, West Sacramento,

California

Mayor Michael Cahill, Beverly, Massachusetts

Mayor Kenneth Carlson, Pleasant Hill, California

Mayor Catherine Carlton, Menlo Park, California

Mayor Craig Cates, Key West, Florida

Mayor Jerry Cole, Rainier, Oregon

Mayor Chris Coleman, Saint Paul, Minnesota

Mayor Michael Coleman, Columbus, Ohio

Mayor Barbara Coler, Fairfax, California

Mayor Ron Collins, San Carlos, California

Mayor Carolyn Comitta, West Chester, Pennsylvania

Mayor Thomas Cook, Freehold Township, New Jersey

Mayor Suzette Cooke, Kent, Washington

Mayor Joy Cooper, Hallandale Beach, Florida

App. 4

Mayor Frederick Courtright, Mount Pocono,

Pennsylvania

Mayor David Coviello, Biscayne Park, Florida

Mayor Frank Cownie, Des Moines, Iowa

Mayor John Cranley, Cincinnati, Ohio

Mayor Robert Cullen, King City, California

Mayor Joseph Curtatone, Somerville, Massachusetts

Mayor Pauline Cutter, San Leandro, California

Mayor John D’Amico, West Hollywood, California

Mayor CJ Davis, Holt, Michigan

Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York, New York

Mayor Victor De Luca, Maplewood, New Jersey

Mayor John Dennis, West Lafayette, Indiana

Mayor James Diossa, Central Falls, Rhode Island

Mayor Robert Dolan, Melrose, Massachusetts

Mayor Tom Donegan, Provincetown, Massachusetts

Mayor Bridget Donnell Newton, Rockville, Maryland

Mayor Kimberley Driscoll, Salem, Massachusetts

Mayor Michael Duggan, Detroit, Michigan

Mayor Jon Dunleavy, Bloomingdale, New Jersey

Mayor Buddy Dyer, Orlando, Florida

Mayor Paul Dyster, Niagara Falls, New York

Mayor Amanda Marie Edmonds, City of Ypsilanti,

Michigan

Mayor Jim Ellison, Royal Oak, Michigan

Mayor Jorge O. Elorza, Providence, Rhode Island

Mayor Mimi Elrod, Lexington, Virginia

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago, Illinois

Mayor John Engen, Missoula, Montana

Mayor Mark Epley, Southampton, New York

Mayor William Euille, Alexandria, Virginia

Mayor Kevin Faulconer, San Diego, California

Mayor (Town Supervisor) Paul] Feiner, Greenburgh,

New York

Mayor Andrew M. Fellows, College Park, Maryland

App. 5

Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio, New London, Connecticut

Mayor Johnny Ford, Tuskegee, Alabama

Mayor David Foubert, Yellow Springs, Ohio

Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson, Gary, Indiana

Mayor Steven Fulop, Jersey City, New Jersey

Mayor Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles, California

Mayor Robert Garcia, Long Beach, California

Mayor Victoria Gearity, Ossining, New York

Mayor Andrew Gillum, Tallahassee, Florida

Mayor David Glass, Petaluma, California

Mayor Elizabeth Goreham, State College, Pennsylvania

Mayor J. Richard Gray, City of Lancaster,

Pennsylvania

Mayor David Gysberts, Hagerstown, Maryland

Mayor Charlie Hales, Portland, Oregon

Mayor Barbara Halliday, Hayward, California

Mayor Michael B. Hancock, Denver, Colorado

Mayor Timothy Hanna, Appleton, Wisconsin

Mayor Toni N. Harp, New Haven, Connecticut

Mayor Bruce A. Harris, Chatham, New Jersey

Mayor Matt Hayek, Iowa City, Iowa

Mayor George Heartwell, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Mayor Karyn Hippen, Thompson, North Dakota

Mayor Betsy Hodges, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Mayor John Hollar, Montpelier, Vermont

Mayor Jamel Holley, Roselle, New Jersey

Mayor Aaron Householter, Salina, Kansas

Mayor Frank G. Jackson, Cleveland, Ohio

Mayor Sylvester “Sly” James, City of Kansas City,

Missouri

Mayor Gary Jensen, Ferndale, Washington

Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Fayetteville, Arkansas

Mayor Richard Kaplan, Lauderhill, Florida

Mayor Stephen Keefe, Fredonia, New York

Mayor Christopher Kelly, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania

App. 6

Mayor Judy Kennedy, Newburgh, New York

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Mayor Michael Kohut, Haverstraw, New York

Mayor Chris Koos, Normal, Illinois

Mayor Janice Kovach, Clinton, New Jersey

Mayor Rick Kriseman, St. Petersburg, Florida

Mayor Mark Kruzan, Bloomington, Indiana

Mayor Jennifer Laird-White, Nyack, New York

Mayor Kenneth A. LaSota, Borough of Heidelberg,

Pennsylvania

Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Carrboro, North Carolina

Mayor Timothy Leavitt, Vancouver, Washington

Mayor Marcia Leclerc, East Hartford, Connecticut

Mayor Liz Lempert, Princeton, New Jersey

Mayor Connie Leon-Kreps, North Bay Village, Florida

Mayor Sam Liccardo, San Jose, California

Mayor Peter Lindstrom, Falcon Heights, Minnesota

Mayor David Lossing, Linden, Michigan

Mayor Larry MacDonald, Bayfield, Wisconsin

Mayor Kim Maggard, Whitehall, Ohio

Mayor M. James Maley Jr., Borough of Collingswood,

New Jersey

Mayor John Manchester, Lewisburg, West Virginia

Mayor Esther Manheimer, Asheville, North Carolina

Mayor John Marchione, Redmond, Washington

Mayor A. David Marne, Shavano Park, Texas

Mayor David Martin, Stamford, Connecticut

Mayor William Martin, Greenfield, Massachusetts

Mayor Shaun McCaffery, Healdsburg, California

Mayor Fred McCarthy, Langley, Washington

Mayor Ronald McDaniel, Montville, Connecticut

Mayor Kevin McKeown, Santa Monica, California

Mayor John A. McNally, Youngstown, Ohio

Mayor Pasquale Menna, Red Bank, New Jersey

Mayor Kurt Metzger, Pleasant Ridge, Michigan

App. 7

Mayor Michael Mignogna, Voorhees, New Jersey

Mayor Stephanie Miner, Syracuse, New York

Mayor Mark Mitchell, Tempe, Arizona

Mayor William Moehle, Town of Brighton, New York

Mayor Alex Morse, Holyoke, Massachusetts

Mayor Darryl Moss, Creedmoor, North Carolina

Mayor Svante Myrick, Ithaca, New York

Mayor David Narkewicz, Northampton, Massachusetts

Mayor Marvin Natiss, North Hills, New York

Mayor Don Ness, Duluth, Minnesota

Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mayor Frank Ortis, Pembroke Pines, Florida

Mayor Eric Papenfuse, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Mayor Robert D. Parisi, West Orange, New Jersey

Mayor Annise Parker, Houston, Texas

Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia, California

Mayor Ed Pawlowski, Allentown, Pennsylvania

Mayor William Peduto, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Mayor Jannquell Peters, East Point, Georgia

Mayor Randy Peterson, St. Helens, Oregon

Mayor Jerry V. Pierce, Valley Mills, Texas

Mayor Kitty Piercy, Eugene, Oregon

Mayor Donald Plusquellic, Akron, Ohio

Mayor Peter Porcino, Ardsley, New York

Mayor Stephen P. Pougnet, Palm Springs, California

Mayor Mike Rawlings, Dallas, Texas

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore,

Maryland

Mayor Kasim Reed, Atlanta, Georgia

Mayor Tari Renner, Bloomington, Illinois

Mayor Gary Resnick, Wilton Manors, Florida

Mayor Paul Rickenbach, Jr., Village of East Hampton,

New York

Mayor David Rivella, Morrisville, Pennsylvania

Mayor Thomas Roach, White Plains, New York

App. 8

Mayor Madeline Rogero, Knoxville, Tennessee

Mayor Ron Rordam, Blacksburg, Virginia

Mayor Cindy Rosenthal, Norman, Oklahoma

Mayor Jonathan Rothschild, Tucson, Arizona

Mayor Jesus Ruiz, Socorro, Texas

Mayor Mike Ryan, Sunrise, Florida

Mayor Tim Ryan, Broward County, Florida

Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells, Culver City, California

Mayor Mary Salas, Chula Vista, California

Mayor Pete Sanchez, Suisun City, California

Mayor Angelo “Skip” Saviano, Elmwood Park, Illinois

Mayor Hillary Schieve, Reno, Nevada

Mayor Timothy Scott, Carlisle, Pennsylvania

Mayor Pedro Segarra, Hartford, Connecticut

Mayor Kathy Sheehan, Albany, New York

Mayor Sarah Sherwood, Abbeville, South Carolina

Mayor John Sibert, Malibu, California

Mayor Scott Silverthorne, Fairfax, Virginia

Mayor Ronald Silvis, Greensburg, Pennsylvania

Mayor Steve Skadron, Aspen, Colorado

Mayor Jeffrey Slavin, Somerset, Maryland

Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis, Missouri

Mayor Patrick Slayter, Sebastopol, California

Mayor R. Scott Slifka, West Hartford, Connecticut

Mayor Marjorie Sloan, Golden, Colorado

Mayor Paul J. Smith, Jr., Borough of Union Beach,

New Jersey Mayor Paul R. Soglin, Madison, Wisconsin

Mayor Jeanne Sorg, Ambler, Pennsylvania

Mayor Mike Spano, Yonkers, New York

Mayor Vaughn Spencer, Reading, Pennsylvania

Mayor Tom Stallard, Woodland, California

Mayor Greg Stanton, Phoenix, Arizona

Mayor Tom Stevens, Hillsborough, North Carolina

Mayor Philip Stoddard, City of South Miami, Florida

Mayor Marilyn Strickland, Tacoma, Washington

App. 9

Mayor Ron Strouse, Doylestown, Pennsylvania

Mayor Peter Swiderski, Hastings-on-Hudson,

New York

Mayor Christopher Taylor, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Mayor Ted Terry, Clarkston, Georgia

Mayor Jack Thomas, Park City, Utah

Mayor James Thomas, Jr., Hinesville, Georgia

Mayor Brian Tobin, Cortland, New York

Mayor Alex Torpey, South Orange, New Jersey

Mayor Nathan Triplett, East Lansing, Michigan

Mayor Zachary Vruwink, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin

Mayor Dayne Walling, Flint, Michigan

Mayor Martin J. Walsh, Boston, Massachusetts

Mayor Setti Warren, Newton, Massachusetts

Mayor Miro Weinberger, Burlington, Vermont

Mayor Georgine Welo, South Euclid, Ohio

Mayor Shelley Welsch, University City, Missouri

Mayor Jason West, New Paltz, New York

Mayor Bob Whalen, Laguna Beach, California

Mayor Nan Whaley, Dayton, Ohio

Mayor Dennis Wilcox, Cleveland Heights, Ohio

Mayor Bruce Williams, Takoma Park, Maryland

Mayor Kenneth Williams, Carbon Cliff, Illinois

Mayor Michael Winkler, Arcata, California

Mayor Aaron Wittnebel, Lake Park, Minnesota

Mayor Ken Wray, Sleepy Hollow, New York

Mayor Dawn Zimmer, City of Hoboken, New Jersey

Los Angeles, California

San Francisco, California

Chicago, Illinois

New York, New York

Arlington, Virginia

Berkeley, California

Boston, Massachusetts

App. 10

Broward, Florida

Carrboro, North Carolina

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Cleveland Heights, Ohio

College Park, Maryland

Davis, California

Dayton, Ohio

East Lansing, Michigan

Emsworth, Pennsylvania

Fairfax, California

Irvington, New Jersey

Kansas City, Missouri

Kent, Washington

Laguna Beach, California

Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Long Beach, California

Madison, Wisconsin

Malibu, California

Newburgh, New York

Nyack, New York

Pembroke Pines, Florida

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Pleasant Hill, California

Portland, Maine

Princeton, New Jersey

Salem, Massachusetts

Santa Monica, California

Takoma Park, Maryland

Washington, D.C.

West Hollywood, California

Whitehall, Ohio

Wilton Manors, Florida

Ypsilanti, Michigan