Amicus Curiae Brief — Tanco v. Haslam, 135 S. Ct. 1040 (2015) (No. 14-562)
Supreme Court brief2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUL ete o aA..3 iu »
PLED
APR - 3 2015
Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, and 14-974 0. Ge ye crx
Ju the Supreme Court
of the Anited States
JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL..,
RESPONDENTS
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DAVID BOYLE IN
SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
David Boyle
Counsel of Record
P.O. Box 15143
Long Beach, CA 90815
dbo@boyleslaw.org
(734) 904-6132
(Additional captions listed on inside cover)
VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, ET
AL., RESPONDENTS
APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, ET
AL., RESPONDENTS
GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, ET
AL., RESPONDENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
AMICUS CURIAE STATEMENT OF INTEREST... 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.......000000.0.... ccc 1
I. SAME-SEX COUPLES MAY MOVE TOA
STATE WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE;
THEIR CHILDREN CANNOT EASILY
LEAVE THEIR PARENTS AND GET
DIVERSE-SEX PARENTS
A. Most Homosexual Couples Do Not Have
a Household with Children................. 3
B. How Same-Sex Marriage Injures
Children: Deprivation of Mother or
Father, and the Consequences............ 4
C. Grutter Allows States to Balance
“Constitutional Injury” with
Countervailing, Beneficial State
at nine aiaame nana eal 6
Il. BALLARD AND TIGNER RE SAME-SEX
COUPLES’ PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES:
HAVING CHILDREN TOGETHER; HAVING
REPRODUCTIVE SEX; AND PROVIDING
DIVERSE-GENDER PARENTAGE...... anit 9
Ill. BISEXUAL AND SEXUALLY-FLUID
PERSONS WILL OFTEN CHOOSE
OPPOSITE-SEX SPOUSES WHEN SAME-
SEX MARRIAGE IS UNAVAILABLE; THUS,
SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE BANS ARE
SESS CRB eccc ccc cepesceccccocsecescceoces 9
A. Human Sexual Fluidity Comprises
Many Bisexual or Other Americans
Who Could Choose either Sex-
B. A Revelatory Law-Review Article
Admitting Same-Sex-Marriage Bans’
Channeling Effect Towards Diverse-
Gonder Marriages... ......ccscccccccccccccss 11
C. The Successful Heterosexual Marriages
of Some Sexually-Fluid People: Further
Proof that Same-Sex-Marriage Bans
kitdctiectddiccinnicesitdiersinns 14
D. The Defeat of Arguments for the
Ineffectiveness of Same-Sex-Marriage
Bans, by the Proof Above................. 15
IV THE FAILURE OF
“UNDERINCLUSIVENESS RE FERTILITY”
ARGUMENTS AGAINST SAME-SEX-
MARRIAGE BANG..............c.sceeeccseeseeceeees 16
V GRUTTER AND CHILDREN’S BENEFIT
FROM DIVERSE-GENDER PARENTAGE;
VIII.
IX.
AND THE BAN’S SOCIALLY-BENEFICIAL,
LIFE-AFFIRMING EXPRESSIVE CONTENT
RE CASEY AND CARHART..................++: 17
A. Gender-Diverse Parentage Is a
Compelling State Interest................ 17
B. A Lower Court’s Failure to Respect
Gender Diversity in DeBoer Repeats
That Court’s Failure to Respect
Racial/Gender Diversity in Grutter....19
C. Showing State Respect for Life......... 20
STATES MAY WEIGH THE BALANCE OF
COST/BENEFIT FROM SAME-SEX
I vccecescccseccceveccccnvececsoecesecceseses 21
A SEX-DISCRIMINATION CLAIM IS NOT
| Ee 23
A SEXUAL-ORIENTATION-
DISCRIMINATION CLAIM IS NOT
VIABLE; AND, UPHOLDING SAME-SEX-
MARRIAGE BANS WOULD NOT SUPPORT
EMPLOYMENT/HOUSING
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS....... 25
SODOMY AS CANCER, AIDS, AND
INJURY VECTOR; AND SODOMY-
NORMING AND -EXAMPLING FOR
CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX
PEED covccccuscscsrsesesccscnsonesescounsess 27
lV
MANY ARGUMENTS FOR MANDATORY
LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WOULD
ALSO SUPPORT LEGALIZING
PES coccrcccctcevescdecocosecescsecoscocsncess 31
XI. SOCIAL SCIENCE ON SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE IS STILL UNSETTLED,
THOUGH SOME SUPPORTS
SEE USOEPENEY Bere cccccecccesccccccccecoceseescoces 34
XII. RATIONAL BASIS IS THE RIGHT LEVEL
OF SCRUTINY; AND THE REASONS
ADDUCED HERE COMPRISE VERY
COMPELLING STATE INTERESTS.......37
XIII. SEEKING PRINCIPLED “MIDDLE
GROUND”, IF NEEDED, IN THESE
Ge rcccesscccevccscsescecsecsencosesoseesesouscesce 38
(QTE Occ ccc cccccccescccccccceccsconcsooes 40
ee tevc ccnccccscccccanceccocerecneseteococnseese 41
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187
Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954)...........24
Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982)......... 26
DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich.
i ccsscenaiadesdninenaiadiiiddaediaraniheinnn 19, 20, 34
DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), cert.
granted (U.S. Nov. 18, 2014) (No. 14-
tl cdciiddatigesdetdiidaddidnddaiiiienbetianbieneaie 1&n.2
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124
REECE NEARER 17, 20, 21-22
Grutter v. Bollinger, 137 F. Supp. 2d 821
SII saiapndiceiihebdlainbcacaiaahdiiieneieceeaiaa titled 19, 20
Grutter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732 (2002).............. 18
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306
Se cdcmssesncsensenndnecseenintberseimnesneneasented passim
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)........ passim
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).............0600-. 29
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).....27
One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958)............... 33
Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833
RE escensdndsondbenncesdeenseseedessneneeeieeses 17, 20, 21
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)............cccceececeenes 6
Potter v. Murray City, 585 F. Supp. 1126 (1984), 760
F.2d 1065 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 849
SI iicdahedeeneudbenssianthidnddbnnbnbntennnsaemdebens 33, 34
Schuette v. BAMN, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014)...............7
Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141 (1940).................2, 4, 9
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)....22
CONSTITUTION
a Ge, SIE, TE cnccscciccnsausseseessoseseinades 5, 41
STATUTES OR BALLOT MEASURES
Cal. Proposition 6 (“Briggs Initiative”) (1978)......... 26
Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. 94-439, tit. II, § 209, 90
Stat. 1434 (1976; amended 2009).........21 &n.11
Mich. Proposal 04-2 (2004).................cccee eee ees 24, 25
Mich. Proposal 06-2 (2006).................0022eeeeceeeeeees 25
RULE
ae 1n.l
OTHER AUTHORITIES
(All Internet links below were last visited April 3,
2015.)
Michael Boucai, Sexual Liberty and Same-Sex
Marriage: An Argument from Bisexuality, 49 San
Diego L. Rev. 415 (2012)...........12-13, 23, 29, 37
Br. of Amicus Curiae David Boyle in Supp. of
Neither Party, in DeBoer v. Snyder,
Brs. in Obergefell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, Boer
v. Snyder, & Bourke v. Beshear, Nos. 14-556, 14-
562, 14-571, and 14-574:
Br. of Amicae Curiae Heather Barwick and Katy
Faust in Supp. of Resp’ts....................5. 4,5,6
Br. of Amicus Curiae BiLaw in Supp. of
Br. of Amici Curiae Robert Oscar Lopez and
B.N. Klein in Supp. of Resp’ts................... 4,5
Br. of Amicae Curiae Dawn Stefanowicz and
Denise Shick in Supp. of Resp’ts................... 5
CDC, HIV Among Youth (undated), http://www.cdc.
gov/hiv/risk/age/youth/......................2+0+ 30 & n.20
Dan Chmielewski, Ronald Reagan on Gay Rights,
Liberal OC, June 9, 2008, http://www.
Gary DeMar, How Can Chirlane McCray de Blasio
be a ‘Former’ Lesbian?, Godfather Politics, Dec.
28, 2013, http://godfatherpolitics.com/13765/can-
chirlane-mccray-de-blasio-former-
Rivka Edelman, Robert Oscar Lopez, & Dawn
Stefanowicz, Children of Gay Parents, Part 1 of
4, in Jephthah’s Daughters (Lopez & Edelman,
ST iictlinkinstdinmumbtonadotecincinnsietetosipicen 29
Kelly Faircloth, The ACLU Kicks Up a Fuss About
Sex-Segregated Middle School Classes, Jezebel,
Jan. 24, 2014, 3:15 p.m., http://jezebel.com/the-
aclu-kicks-up-a-fuss-about-sex-segregated-
middle-sc-15065782972......................0-20- 24 &n.14
Fifth Commandment (Exodus 20:12)................ 8, 41
Gary J. Gates, LGBT Parenting in the United States,
The Williams Inst., Feb. 2013, http://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/
uploads/LGBT-Parenting.
i iinicstvneuséeetabenkemehonines 3 & n.3, 22-23 & n.13
Gay Men’s Health Crisis, The Bottom Line on Rectal
Microbicide Research (undated, but about a Jan.
23, 2013 presentation), http://www.gmhc.org/
news-and-events/events-calendar/the-bottom-
line-on-rectal-microbicide-research....... 28 &n.18
Arin Greenwood, Who Are “The Polyamorists Next
Door’? Q&A With Author Elisabeth Sheff,
Huffington Post, updated Mar. 5, 2014, 10:59
http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/
elisabeth-sheff-polyamory_n_4898961.
REET EE eee, 22 & n.12, 32
HHS, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood—
Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page
(last revised July 21, 2011), http://www.
I I occcctccccccscccvesseceseenesees 18 & n.10
Carrie A. Moore, Gay LDS men detail challenges: 3
who are married give some insights to therapist
group, Deseret News, Mar. 30, 2007, 12:22 a.m.,
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660207378/
Gay-LDS-men-detail-challenges.
Sidndanaintdienpadidllmmndsnasivenidedinniniienin 14-15 & n.6
Nat'l Ctr. for Biotech. Info., U.S. Nat'l Libr. of Med..,
Nat'l Insts. of Health, Vaginal “fisting” as a
cause of death., PubMed.gov (undated), http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
SLE RRR A oS ee 28 & n.19
Martha Nussbaum, A Right to Marry? Same-sex
Marriage and Constitutional Law, Dissent,
Summer 2009, http://www.dissentmagazine.
org/article/a-right-to-marry-same-sex-marriage-
and-constitutional-law...................... 31-32 & n.21
Patricia, Our America with Lisa Ling — “Modern
Polygamy” a New Perspective on an Old Taboo,
The Daily OWN, Oct. 24, 2011, http://www.
thedailyown.com/our-america-with-lisa-ling-
modern-polygamy-a-new-perspective-on-an-old-
Matt Sloane, Fewer teens having oral sex, The Chart,
CNN, Aug. 17, 2012, 10:41 a.m., http://thechart.
blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/17/fewer-teens-having-
EEA EER ot Re ae PES ONE SORES = 28 & n.17
Sonia Sotomayor, My Beloved World (paperback ed.,
Vintage Books 2014 (2013))..................0eeee2 eee 19
Judith Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the
Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Am.
BR EG ST iccinctanndsuacnessiinaciinans 29-30
Mircea Trandafir, The effect of same-sex marriage
laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from
the Netherlands (2009), available at http://www.
iza.org/conference_files/TAM2010/trandafir_m
6039.pdf (courtesy of Institute for the Study of
i cncniemdensansaentiaanasannaeiins 35-36 & n.24, 37
Mircea Trandafir, The effect of same-sex marriage
laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from
the Netherlands, 51 Demography 317 (2014),
available at http://findresearcher.sdu.dk:8080/
portal/files/80662951/MS_2012 _063.pdf
(courtesy of Syddansk
i tiaiceeel 36 & n.25, 37
Variety Staff, TLC Faces Pressure to Cancel ‘My
Husband’s Not Gay’ Special, GLAAD Calls Show
‘Dangerous’, Variety, Jan. 6, 2015, 7:02 a.m.,
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/tlc-my-
husbands-not-gay-cancellation-protest-glaad-
TE Eee nee meee Ee 15 & n.7
Hilary White, Group marriage is next, admits Dutch
father’ of gay ‘marriage’, LifeSiteNews, Mar. 12,
2013, 5:58 p.m., http://www.lifesitenews.com/
news/group-marriage-is-next-admits-dutch-
father-of-gay-marriage........................... 34 & n.23
Wikipedia, Anal sex, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Anal sex (as of Mar. 19, 2015, at 16:17
Siicicisatsceniutciisndiadsuniddibanaamaiinieaddadmabanadiadias 27 & n.16
Wikipedia, Anne Heche, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Anne_Heche (as of Apr. 2, 2015, at 00:23
gE eae EAE ie eee aE nc ata ne 16 & n.8
Wikipedia, Bisexuality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bisexuality (as of Mar. 29, 2015, at 5:53
NC siascnia ceeded cel tuba eeudigtaianseaiieaadaaaiaial 10-11 & n.4
Wiktionary, yestergay, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/
yestergay (as of May 22, 2014, at 28:54
AMICUS CURIAE STATEMENT OF INTEREST
The present amicus curiae, David Boyle
(hereinafter, “Amicus”),! is respectfully filing this
Brief in Support of Respondents, supplementing his
pre-certiorari brief in Case 14-571 (“DeBoer”).
The present brief presents a “worst-case litigation
scenario” for Respondents, wherein Petitioners may
indeed suffer constitutional injury from same-sex-
marriage bans. However, the scenario is even worse
than that, since this brief assumes that no matter
how the Court decides, either Petitioners or
Respondents might suffer constitutional injury. And
that injury is easier for Petitioners to avoid.
That, plus other reasons, should persuade this
Court to hold for Respondents and their citizens’
democratic vote to retain traditional marriage alone.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Though most same-sex couples lack children,
those who have them, de facto deprive those children
of either mother or father—and if the State promotes
same-sex marriage, that state action may violate
children’s rights to mother and father. Even if same-
sex-marriage bans do constitutional injury to same-
sex couples and their children, then, under Grutter v.
Bollinger (539 U.S. 306 (2003)), a State may risk
constitutional injury (such as using blatant racial
1 No party or its counsel wrote or helped write this brief, or
gave money intended to fund its writing or submission, see S.
Ct. R. 37. Blanket permission from Respondents to write briefs
is filed with the Court, as is a letter of permission to Amicus
from Petitioners.
2 DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), cert. granted
(U.S. Nov. 18, 2014) (No. 14-571).
preferences) to parties if there is sufficiently-
compelling justification. And the likely constitutional
injury from State endorsement/assistance to
depriving a child of mother or father, plus other
injury, strongly justifies a State’s not licensing same-
sex marriages.
Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946), and
Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141 (1940), support the
idea that with the physical differences between
same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples re
fertility, etc., same-sex-marriage bans make sense.
Same-sex-marriage bans steer bisexual or
sexually-fluid persons towards heterosexual
marriage. This increases the number of children, and
reduces the amount of sodomy-norming role-
modeling for children.
Same-sex-marriage bans are not “underinclusive”
re fertility, due to, e.g., privacy concerns which
preclude fertility testing.
The Grutter compelling state interest in diversity
also applies to gender-diverse couples who raise
children. Moreover, the State may show respect for
life—which only diverse-gender couples can create—
by its regulations, much as with abortion laws.
A State’s People are competent to assess the cost
and benefit of various marriage laws.
A sex-discrimination claim is not appropriate,
especi: 'ly since same-sex marriage creates sex-
segregation.
A sexual-orientation-discrimination claim is not
appropriate, even if such claims are appropriate for
employment, housing, or other matters.
Sodomy is far more dangerous than heterosexual
sex, and the tendency of same-sex-parenting to
increase children’s likelihood of homosexual behavior
may adversely affect fertility and disease rates.
Arguments for mandatory legal same-sex
marriage are hard to distinguish from those for
legalized polygamy.
Social science about same-sex marriage and its
effects is still in flux, though some research strongly
supports Respondents.
Compelling state interests, narrowly tailored and
with least-restrictive means, support Respondents’
marriage laws.
While Respondents deserve victory, there are
possibilities for a “middle ground” if desired.
The Court’s decision will inevitably disappoint
Petitioners or Respondents; but the tragedy of
ending democratic rule in America can be avoided by
holding for Respondents.
ARGUMENT
I. SAME-SEX COUPLES MAY MOVE TOA
STATE WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE; THEIR
CHILDREN CANNOT EASILY LEAVE THEIR
PARENTS AND GET DIVERSE-SEX PARENTS
A. Most Homosexual Couples Do Not Have a
Household with Children
As a starting note, Amicus observes that “same-
sex-marriage bans hurt the children” may be a red
herring, in that over 80% of gay couples don’t even
have children in the household.’ The vast majority
3 See Gary J. Gates, LGBT Parenting in the United States, The
Williams Inst., Feb. 2013, http-//williamsinstitute.law ucla.
edu/wp-content/uploadse/LGBT-Parenting.pdf, at 2.
4
being childless, one need do little more than mention
“The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a
community made up exclusively of one is different
from a community composed of both”, Ballard, 329
U.S. at 193 (Douglas, J.), and “The Constitution does
not require things which are different in fact or
opinion to be treated in law as though they were the
same”, Tigner, 310 U.S. at 147 (Frankfurter, J.), to
disprove a “constitutional right to same-sex
marriage”
B. How Same-Sex Marriage Injures Children:
Deprivation of Mother or Father, and the
Consequences
But where there are children, one should not
injure them through state action. However, Amicus
does not see how bans on same-sex marriage hurt
the children of same-sex couples more than bans on
polygamy hurt the children of polygamists: bans on
polygamy being perfectly constitutional so far. (In
fact, polygamists would tend to have more children
to be hurt. Are polygamists’ kids second-class
citizens, or “children of a lesser god”, compared to
homosexuals’ kids?)
However, Amicus shall assume, only for the sake
of argument, that same-sex-marriage bans may
wield some constitutional injury against same-sex
couples’ children.
This might seem to give an “automatic win” to
Petitioners’ side, or close. However, are children also
hurt if same-sex-marriage bans are struck down?
As evinced by testimony in the amicae/i briefs in
these cases from Barwick & Faust, Lopez & Klein,
5
and Stefanowicz & Shick (Amicus was counsel), see
Brs. passim, and other evidence, children do suffer
in same-sex marriages, horribly, by having no
mother or no father—with the attendant stigma,
humiliation, injury, and gender confusion—, and
growing up in an environment that encourages
comparatively-dangerous sex (sodomy). Because of
the State’s actions in encouraging, through
government honor and subsidy, same-sex couples to
marry, with full knowledge that many of them will
have children, through surrogacy or otherwise, the
State is responsible for what happens. This State
action hurts children, including the expressive harm
of saying those children do not need both mother and
father; and this gives ample reason for States not to
license same-sex marriage.
Otherwise put: if children should have an equal
right not to be deprived of a mother or father, then
State licensing of same-sex marriages may violate
the Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights
of same-sex couples’ children.
So if either same-sex marriage, or same-sex-
marriage bans, may hurt children, then who decides
on the legality of same-sex marriage? If there is
damage (or benefit) either way, it seems States
should be trusted to do a “cost-benefit judgment” and
make the decision.
This is all the truer since there is no nationwide
same-sex-marriage ban. Many States offer such
marriages, so, if first cousins must move to another
State to marry, how is it unconstitutional for same-
sex couples to do similarly?
By massive contrast, same-sex couples’ children
who do not enjoy being deprived of a mother or
6
father cannot just easily “divorce their parents” and
go to the corner store and get themselves a new,
diverse-gender set of parents like the vast majority
of children have. The children are basically trapped
until age 18 in that sad situation—and, horribly,
may not even be aware of their deprivation, see, e.g.,
Barwick/Faust Br. at 7-8, 11 (detailing how amicae
did not realize their loss until later in life). And even
after 18, they may live the rest of their lives sans a
mother or father, unless they somehow get adopted
by someone else.
Agency, autonomy, right of exit, “choice”:
whatever one calls it, same-sex couples’ children are
deprived of it, re motherlessness or fatherlessness.
And those helpless children should be protected from
that, by letting States avoid licensing same-sex
marriage.
(Same-sex-marriage supporters who really care
about children, should insist that all children, even
of the unmarried or polygamists, receive equal
benefits, without their parents having to be legally
married. After all, Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202
(1982)), see id., did not give “illegal/undocumented”
children, or their likely also “illegal/undocumented”
parents, legal-citizenship status, though both
parents and children may feel “stigmatized” by lack
of legal-citizen status.)
C. Grutter Allows States to Balance
“Constitutional Injury” with Countervailing,
Beneficial State Interests
So there is a terrible differential, i.e., that same-
sex couples can move and escape any “injury”, but
children cannot easily “dump” their same-sex
parents. Thus, same-sex marriage can be considered
more damaging than same-sex-marriage bans—or at
least States may so find, just as they may support
injurious race preferences, see Grutter, supra at 2,
passim.
In fact, under Grutter, States are allowed to
choose a constitutionally-injurious practice, when
they could choose instead a practice that does no
constitutional injury:
[W]henever the government treats any
person unequally because of his or her
race, that person has suffered an
injury([.]
Id. at 327 (internal quotation marks omitted)
(O’Connor, J.). E.g., States may choose to allow
affirmative action, with open race (or gender)
preferences that may stigmatize both the
recipients—possibly seen as unable to win college
admission without race/gender bonuses—and the
majority, e.g., white males, who may feel stamped as
“unworthy” of race/gender preferences; when the
States could simply have chosen not to have
affirmative action, see, e.g., Schuette v. BAMN, 134
S. Ct. 1623 (2014), and there would be no
stigmatization or constitutional injury.
By contrast, in the instant cases, either way may
risk constitutional injury, whether upholding or
overturning same-sex-marriage bans; and, again,
same-sex couples may escape injury by merely
crossing a State border, whereas their children
might have to fly to Neverland to find a mother or
father. (Borrowing from tort law: the “cheapest cost
avoider” or “easiest risk-avoider” is the same-sex
couple, not their children, so the adults should have
to make the accommodation.) A fortiori, then, it is
even more constitutionally allowable to uphold
same-sex-marriage bans than it is to uphold
affirmative action.
(In addition, even if quasi-suspect classification
were necessary in these cases, due to gender or
sexual-orientation “discrimination”; such
“discrimination” is less serious than racial
discrimination—as in race-based affirmative
action—, which is fully-suspect classification.)
While there may be no black-letter “constitutional
right to a mother and father” in the Nation at
present, nor is there a black-letter “constitutional
right to a State same-sex marriage”, either. So for
this Court to invent a constitutional right to State
same-sex marriage but not acknowledge a
constitutional right to a mother and father—and
there is a far older tradition of having and
cherishing father and mother than of same-sex
marriage, see, e.g., the Fifth Commandment (Exodus
20:12), ordaining honor to father and mother so that
the children may live long—, risks seeming biased
and irrational by the Court.
After all, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s
concurrence in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
(2003), notes, “[R]easons exist to promote the
institution of marriage beyond mere moral
disapproval of an excluded group.” Jd. at 585.
Protecting children’s right to a mother and father,
and to an environment not role-modeling sodomy,
are indeed “legitimate reasons, id.
9
Il. BALLARD AND TIGNER RE SAME-SEX
COUPLES’ PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES:
HAVING CHILDREN TOGETHER; HAVING
REPRODUCTIVE SEX; AND PROVIDING
DIVERSE-GENDER PARENTAGE
Indeed, for same-sex couples, some things are
physically impossible. —First, they cannot get each
other pregnant. Second, the only kinds of sexual
relations they can have are non-reproductive, a.k.a.
“sodomy”. And third, they can never provide gender-
diverse parenting or role-modeling. Two men cannot
breast-feed a child; two women cannot provide a
little boy a male role model.
Once again, Ballard and Tigner, supra at 2, hold
sway, letting the law treat unlike parties—same-sex
and diverse-sex couples—differently. Amicus politely
notes that Petitioners’ briefs never mentioned
Ballard at any point, when Petitioners may have
duty to mention such directly contrary authority to
the Court.
There are profound common-sense differences
between diverse-gender and same-gender couples. If
this Court wants to openly overrule Ballard, that
seems a radical and destructive step to take.
We now focus on how same-sex-marriage bans are
effective at their goals:
Ill. BISEXUAL AND SEXUALLY-FLUID
PERSONS WILL OFTEN CHOOSE OPPOSITE-
SEX SPOUSES WHEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
IS UNAVAILABLE; THUS, SAME-SEX-
MARRIAGE BANS ARE HIGHLY RATIONAL
10
A. Human Sexual Fluidity Comprises Many
Bisexual or Other Americans Who Could
Choose either Sex-Segregated or Diverse-
Gender Marriage
Same-sex-marriage proponents often cite only two
groups as really relevant: heterosexuals and
homosexuals. Supposedly, a same-sex-marriage
ban—-since it neither affect heterosexuals nor makes
homosexuals enter heterosexual marriages—is not
only meaningless but mean: an illegal instantiation
of “animus”
However, that binary model supra is false. There
is a “rainbow” of sexual preference: traditional two-
person heterosexual! relationships; polygamy;
homosexuality; asexuality; and bisexuality, among
others. The last of those, bisexuality, has many
adherents in America.
The Wikipedia article Bisexuality‘ offers figures
ranging from 0.7 to 5 percent of Americans being
bisexual, see id. There may be even more bisexuals
than homosexuals: “The Janus Report on Sexual
Behavior, published in 1993, showed that 5 percent
of men and 3 percent of women considered
themselves bisexual and 4 percent of men and 2
percent of women considered themselves
homosexual.” Jd. (footnote omitted) Thus, with so
many people attracted to either sex, the myth of
“immutable sexual preference” vanishes.
The number may be even larger than 5%: “Alfred
Kinsey’s 1948 work Sexual Behavior in the Human
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality (as of Mar. 29, 2015,
at 5:53 GMT).
11
Male found that ‘46% of the male population had
engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual
activities[.]” Id. (footnote omitted)
See also, e.g., “A 2002 survey in the United States
by National Center for Health Statistics found that
[:] 2.8 percent of women ages 18—44 considered
themselves bisexual, 1.3 percent homosexual, and
3.8 percent as ‘something else”’, id. (footnote
omitted); therefore, 6.6 percent who were either
bisexual or “sexually flexible”
So, if we conservatively assume that not even 5%,
but only 4%, of the population is bisexual/‘sexually
fluid”; then if there are c. 320 million Americans
right now, c. 12.8 million are bisexual. If even half of
those marry, that is 6.4 million people, with roughly
3.2 million marrying opposite-sex partners, and 3.2
million marrying same-sex partners, if same-sex
marriage were available.
But if same-sex marriage were unavailable, then,
at least c. 3.2 million more people, if they marry,
would marry opposite-sex partners. Over three
million people moved into diverse-gender marriage
provides far more than a mere “rational basis” for
same-sex-marriage bans, but rather, an extremely
compelling state interest.
If the real-life numbers are anywhere close to
those hypothetical figures—or even if lower—, they
make the case for a direct, very strong nexus
between same-sex-marriage bans and the channeling
of people into heterosexual marriages.
B. A Revelatory Law-Review Article Admitting
Same-Sex-Marriage Bans’ Channeling Effect
Towards Diverse-Gender Marriages
12
Even some proponents of same-sex marriage
admit, and lament, that laws like Respondents’
“channel” bisexuals into heterosexual marriages. See
Michael Boucai, Sexual Liberty and Same-Sex
Marriage: An Argument from Bisexuality, 49 San
Diego L. Rev. 415 (2012): “This Article proposes that
same-sex marriage bans channel individuals,
particularly bisexuals, into heterosexual relations
and relationships[.]” Jd. at 416. Boucai believes
(wrongly) that same-sex-marriage bans violate
fundamental rights, see td. passim. So he is basically
“admitting against interest” when acknowledging
the channeling effect.
Some mechanisms for such channeling include
“proscription of competing institutions[,] vast
material support, and symbolic valorization”, id. at
418 (footnote omitted). (Polygamy is another
“proscribed competing institution”, so same-sex
marriage is not alone.)
Also: bisexuals are a “class of individuals,
amorphous yet numerous’, id. at 438; “72.8% of all
homosexually active men identify as heterosexual”,
id. at 440; certain “trends describe only self-
identified bisexuals. It would be startling if
bisexuals’ true rates of heterosexual coupling and
marriage were not significantly higher’, id. at 450;
bisexuals are “by some estimates an ‘invisible
majority’ of LGBT people”, id. at 483-84 (footnote
omitted); and, “With regard to procreation, this
Article’s argument implicitly concedes one way in
which same-sex marriage bans advance the state’s
interest: by increasing the number of bisexuals who
pursue same-sex relationships, legalization
13
presumably will decrease these individuals’ chances
of reproducing.” Jd. at 482.
Boucai’s last observation supra disproves the
argument, “Same-sex-marriage bans just hurt same-
sex couples and their kids who are already together.”
That argument falsely assumes that legalized same-
sex marriage will entice nobody into entering same-
sex relationships: a startling assumption. Same-sex-
marriage supporters are adamant that legalized
same-sex marriage has wonderful benefits; if that is
true, why would it not greatly entice people (e.z.,
bisexuals) to enter same-sex relationships, who
otherwise would not have entered them?
And Boucai also shows far more extreme views.
For example: “(What if the] impressionable
psychosexual development of children is a basis for
widening, not limiting, the range of ‘lifestyle choices’
to which they are exposed[?]”, with a citation “urging
advocates to affirm that nonheterosexual parents
‘create an environment in which it is safer for
children to openly express their own sexual
orientations”. Id. at 484 & n.456. L.e., Boucai posits
nonheterosexual parenting as better than
heterosexual parenting, see id., because a larger
amount of children’s homosexual behavior will occur.
If Boucai admits it, who is anyone else to deny it?
BiLaw’s brief in these cases, see id. at 7, rightly
mentions Boucai and his complaint that same-sex-
marriage litigation has unjustly omitted bisexuality
issues. However, that brief itself, see id.,
unfortunately omits Boucai’s fertility-based rationale
for how same-sex-marriage bans have a rational—or
compelling—basis, and omits Boucai’s candid
14
admission about how gay parenting makes children’s
homosexual behavior more likely.
The LGBT community even privately
acknowledges sexual flexibility, using terms like
“yestergay’, see Wiktionary, yestergay,5 “1. (slang,
LGBT) A former gay male who is now in a
heterosexual relationship”, id., or the terms
“hasbian” and “lesbians until graduation”. Our
courts should publicly acknowledge this “sexual
flexibility”, and should acknowledge Boucai’s
admissions supra, which support Respondents’ case.
C. The Successful Heterosexual Marriages of
Some Sexually-Fluid People: Further Proof
that Same-Sex-Marriage Bans Are Effective
Theory aside, there are multifarious real-life
examples of how channeling people into diverse-
gender marriages works. See, e.g., Carrie A. Moore,
Gay LDS men detail challenges: 3 who are married
give some insights to therapist group, Deseret News,
Mar. 30, 2007, 12:22 a.m.,®
Speaking to a standing-room-only
audience, three LDS couples described
their experiences with their
heterosexual marriages, despite the fact
that each of the husbands experience[s]
what they call same-sex attraction, or
SSA.
5 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yestergay (as of May 22, 2014, at
23:54 GMT).
6 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660207378/Gay-LDS-
men-detail-challenges. htm].
15
Because of the nature of the
discussion, none of the participants
wanted their [sic] identities publicized.
“[MJjarriage and family .... was always
the goal, even when I [one husband]
was in the wilderness.”
The wives said they see their
husbands as much more than their
same-sex attraction. Despite the
challenges and public perception to the
contrary, one said, “there are people
who are married and dealing with this.”
Id. This revelatory story of courage and persistence
teaches us much. It shows, see id., that sexually-fluid
people can be channeled into successful diverse-
gender relationships. It also shows, see id., the fear
and anonymity that such people gc through, perhaps
obscuring their true, massive numbers.
See also, e.g., Variety Staff, TLC Faces Pressure to
Cancel ‘My Husband’s Not Gay’ Special, GLAAD
Calls Show ‘Dangerous’, Variety, Jan. 6, 2015, 7:02
a.m.7? (homosexuals try to censor idea that sexually-
flexible people might choose heterosexual lifestyle).
D. The Defeat of Arguments for the
Ineffectiveness of Same-Sex-Marriage Bans, by
the Proof Above
7 http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/tlc-my-husbands-not-gay-
cancellation-protest-glaad-1201393586/.
16
At this point, lower courts’ arguments that same-
sex-marriage bans do not channel people, and
procreative power, into traditional marriages, is
destroyed. If same-sex couples are not allowed State-
licensed marriage, then huge numbers of people, e.g.,
the sexually-fluid men noted supra, will be, and have
been, incentivized to enter gender-diverse marriages.
(Even those already in gay relationships may change
course. For example, Ellen DeGeneres’ lesbian lover
Anne Heche later married a man, Coleman Laffoon,
and then moved on to James Tupper, having a son
by each, see, e.g., Wikipedia, Anne Heche.® See also
Gary DeMar, How Can Chirlane McCray de Blasio
be a ‘Former’ Lesbian?, Godfather Politics, Dec. 28,
20139 (noting that New York’s mayor's wife is former
lesbian, despite stereotype that gays are immutably
“born that way”).)
So, same-sex-marriage prohibitions are
effective—or same-sex-marriage supporters like
Boucai would not admit it.
IV. THE FAILURE OF
“UNDERINCLUSIVENESS RE FERTILITY”
ARGUMENTS AGAINST SAME-SEX-
MARRIAGE BANS
And the prohibitions are quite constitutional,
despite weakly-reasoned counterarguments like
“underinclusiveness re fertility”. Infertility is very
difficult to police, especially when advancing medical
technology may cure infertility previously thought
8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Heche (as of Apr. 2, 2015,
at 00:23 GMT).
® http-//godfatherpolitics.com/13765/can-chirlane-mccray-de-
blasio-former-lesbian/#.
17
incurable. (Some people sterilize themselves; but
they may have new surgery and become fertile
again. Should a “Fertility Police” give everyone
frequent examinations before and during marriage”)
Too, as for elderly/post-menopausal people, what
age is that, precisely? Again, medicine may assist
fertility at later ages than previously possible. As
well, men are often fertile longer than women, so
that any “Senior-Citizen Fertility Police” would run
into equal-protection problems, in that old men
might be allowed to marry, while old women might
not be: an outrage.
As for individuals who “choose not to procreate”:
millennia of ribald literature, plus common sense,
confirm that even sincere desire to remair celibate—
or consistently use birth control—, between two
romantic partners, may last as long as a dandelion
blown to pieces by a warm summer wind. Also, will a
“Birth Police” make sure there is issue, progeny,
born from a marriage?
By contrast, gender is supremely easy to
understand and police. So, “underinclusion” re
fertility fails as an objection.
V. GRUTTER AND CHILDREN’S BENEFIT
FROM DIVERSE-GENDER PARENTAGE; AND
THE BAN’S SOCIALLY-BENEFICIAL, LIFE-
AFFIRMING EXPRESSIVE CONTENT RE
CASEY AND CARHART
A. Gender-Diverse Parentage Is a Compelling
State Interest
There is another socially positive aspect to same-
sex-marriage bans besides increased fertility. That
18
is, Grutter upholds diversity, including gender
diversity, as a compelling state interest, see 539 U.S.
at 325. (Too, the Sixth Circuit iteration of Grutter,
288 F.3d 732 (2002), cites with favor the use of
gender preferences, see id. at 745.) Since it would be
ludicrous to say diversity is compelling in formal
education but cannot even be rationally relevant in
18 years of child-nurture, then a gender-diverse
parentage is worthy of special favor by the State.
(See, e.g., HHS, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood—
Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page (last
revised July 21, 2011),'!° “Involved fathers provide
practical support in raising children and serve as
models for their development.” Id. (emphasis added))
Some may make questionable counterarguments,
e.g., “Then why couldn't a State make forced
interracial marriage a compelling state interest?”
But that would be unadministrable; there are so
many racial/interracial categories, that it would be
impossible to assign people. By contrast, there are
only two sexes; and dual-gender marriage has been
the standard arrangement worldwide for thousands
of years.
And, some critics say same-sex-marriage bans
presume same-sex couples can never be good
parents. However, Respondents may only presume
that diverse-sex couples have something special to
offer in parenting. The two Grutter cases supra show
how gender diversity matters; and part of the
rationale States may adopt per Grutter, 539 U.S.
306, is, see id. passim,
1) a bonus for diversity
0 http://www.fatherhood.hhs.gov/.
19
2) that allows exclusion of others.
Thus, diversity bonuses in university admissions
to members of some groups, may exclude certain
others (e.g., white males). But this of course does not
mean white males cannot be good students;
similarly, even though same-sex-marriage bans
exclude same-sex persons, such bans do not mean
same-sex couples can’t be good parents.
Also, no “sex stereotyping” is going on here: in
fact, if children have “nontraditional-occupation”
male and female parents, e.g., a homemaker father
and a Marine Corps sniper mother, that may help
break down gender stereotypes. See, e.g., Sonia
Sotomayor, My Beloved World (paperback ed.,
Vintage Books 2014 (2013)), mentioning that her
father cooked the dinners, id. at 16, and that, “In
many ways, he defied the macho stereotype of a
Latin male.” Id. at 78. Same-sex-marriage
prohibitions stereotype no one. (Unless observing
that women can breast-feed and men can’t, is
“stereotyping’ .)
B. A Lower Court’s Failure to Respect Gender
Diversity in DeBoer Repeats That Court’s
Failure to Respect Racial/Gender Diversity in
Grutter
Mistakes are best not repeated, including ones
made by the same court twice. The district court in
Grutter, with the same judge who rendered one
district-court opinion in the instant cases, Bernard
Friedman, outlawed affirmative action (re Michigan
Law School’s admissions program), thus
disrespecting the compelling power of diversity to
20
fulfill State interests, see 137 F. Supp. 2d 821, 849
(2001). This Court rightfully overturned that
decision. And this Court, accordingly, should differ
with the trial-court DeBoer decision, which does not
appreciate the State’s compelling interest in
supporting diverse-gender couples, instead of same-
gender couples, in publicly-recognized and
subsidized marriage.
C. Showing State Respect for Life
In addition, the State may uphold the value of
life: and same-sex parents cannot have children with
each other. (Artificial insemination and such may let
same-sex couples have someone else’s child—at
least, half someone else’s—and employ the social
fiction of calling it their own.)
See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992): “Regulations. . by which the
State .... may express profound respect for the life
of the unborn are permitted”, id. at 877 (Kennedy,
O’Connor, Souter, JJ.); Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S.
124 (2007): “The [Partial-Birth Abortion Ban] Act
expresses respect for the dignity of human life. .
The government may use its voice and its regulatory
authority to show its profound respect for the life
within the woman’, id. at 157 (Kennedy, J.). The
instant cases are not about abortion, but they do
involve procreation and human life. So, a State may
“show its profound respect for .. life”, id., by
passing laws honoring only those marriages, dual-
gender ones, that create life.
Critics may rejoin that Casey and Carhart, supra,
still permit some abortions, while a ban prohibits all
same-sex marriages. However, this analogy is not
21
apt. Gays are still permitted to live their private
sexual and relational lives any way they want,
following Lawrence. They are just not automatically
given a State blessing and funding for doing so.
This is similar to how abortion is treated:
Americans are usually allowed to perform that
physical act, but sans government endorsement, see
Casey and Carhart (allowing government to
undertake actions or messages favoring children’s
lives), and without government money, see, e.g., the
Hyde Amendment!! (massively limiting federal
abortion funding).
Thus, same-sex-marriage bans, including their
expressive elements, constitutionally promote new
life, gender equity and desegregation, and diversity.
VI. STATES MAY WEIGH THE BALANCE OF
COST/BENEFIT FROM SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Some say that due to same-sex-marriage bans,
same-sex couples’ children are needlessly deprived of
protection. However, polygamous families, too,
produce children outside a legal marriage
relationship; yet polygamy bans are legal, and those
children are “deprived”, despite States’ overall desire
to promote children being born into marriage.
The People, not courts, should decide between the
contending social-science evidence, and also consider
common-sense wisdom about gender-diversity,
encapsulated in sources like Grutter. See, e.z.,
Carhart, supra at 20 (disregarding medical
1! Pub. L. 94-439, tit. II, § 209, 90 Stat. 1434 (1976; amended
2009).
22
professionals’ opinions and upholding federal
partial-birth-abortion ban).
If same-sex couples’ children allegedly suffer
financial harm: since United States v. Windsor, 133
S. Ct. 2675 (2013), federal activism in extending tax
breaks and other benefits to same-sex couples from
any State has strongly alleviated any such harm,
And speaking of fiscal harm: if something
honored as “marriage” can never naturally produce
posterity, that “marriage” may spend public social
capital and money on a non-productive relationship
that the People consider wasteful. How could it be
irrational for a poor, minority, heterosexual mother
of five to decide that draining the public fisc to give
same-sex couples (many of whom may be white and
wealthy) an additional tax break is not right?
As for “humiliation of children”: if any, it is
probably no worse than polyamorists’ children suffer.
See, e.g., Arin Greenwood, Who Are ‘The
Polyamorists Next Door’? Q&A With Author
Elisabeth Sheff (“Sheff Article”), Huffington Post,
updated Mar. 5, 2014, 10:59 a.m.,!2 “[K]ids in poly
families [must] deal[ ] with stigma from society”, id.
Yet few people cry that polygamy must be legalized
just because of “stigma”. As well: what about
children who feel stigmatized or horrified by being
children of a same-sex relationship; who despise that
sex-segregated upbringing? Those children may fear
physical or emotional abuse if they speak out.
Moreover, in America, as of 2010, “[T]here are
approximately 125,000 same-sex couples raising
‘2 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20 1 4/03/05/elisabeth -sheff-
polyamory_n_ 4898961.html.
23
nearly 220,000 children.”!5 220,000 may be far less
than the number of new children born of the possibly
3.2 million people moved into fruitful marriage by
same-sex-marriage bans, see supra at 11. If those 3.2
million had roughly one child each, that would be
over three million children, far more than the
220,000 children raised by same-sex couples. (Of
course, the 3-million-some new children would be
spread out over some years.)
Thus, if same-sex marriage is unavailable, so that
same-sex couples lack State financial or status
benefits, many sexually-fluid people will likely move
into heterosexual marriages, which offer benefits,
instead. Not only will this let some children who
dislike a nontraditional upbringing, have a
traditional two-gender upbringing instead: it will let
more children be born, period, as noted supra at 12-
13 (Boucai on same-sex-marriage bans’ raising the
fertility rate). Not a court, but the People, should
weigh the comparative cost of not letting same-sex
couples and their children receive certain financial
or societal entitlements, with the benefit of having
many more children born at all, and many moved
under a diverse-gender parentage.
Vil. A SEX-DISCRIMINATION CLAIM IS NOT
VIABLE
Speaking of gender: a sex-discrimination claim is
invalid. —If Amicus said there are public facilities
that utterly exclude women: this would sound
horrible, except when Amicus explains that the
13 Gates, LGBT Parenting, supra n.3, at 3.
24
“facilities” are men’s bathrooms. Context is key here,
as with same-sex marriage. (Incidentally, re out-of-
context assertions: various commentators claim gays
and lesbians are as able as heterosexuals to form
lasting relationships. But any number of people can
form committed, long-term relationships, whether
polygamists, underage couples, adult incestuous
couples, etc.)
Inter alia, how is it “sex discrimination” to
prohibit licensing sex-segregated environments for
children? To claim otherwise turns the idea of sex
discrimination on its head. One is tempted to say
that instead, any unhappy children of a same-sex
couple might have sex-discrimination or sex-
segregation claims. See, e.g., Brown v. Bd. of Educ.
(347 U.S. 483 (1954)) (condemning segregated
learning environments for children).
Some who support same-sex marriage, self-
contradictingly also oppose same-sex classrooms, see,
e.g., Kelly Faircloth, The ACLU Kicks Up a Fuss
About Sex-Segregated Middle School Classes,
Jezebel, Jan. 24, 2014, 3:15 p.m.'4 (re lawsuit about
sex-segregated classrooms). But if sex-segregated
student bodies are damaging, why would sex-
segregated parentage—and parents are around kids
far more hours than kids’ hours in school—not be
even more damaging”? States should have leeway not
to license sex-segregated parentage for children.
In one State, Michigan, within two years,
Michiganders passed Proposal 04-2, in 2004
(banning same-sex marriage), and also passed
14 http://jezebel.com/the-aclu-kicks-up-a-fuss-about-sex-
segregated-middle-sc- 1506578292.
25
Proposal 06-2, in 2006 (preventing race or gender
preferences in public education—e.g., affirmative
action—, employment, or contracting). Michiganders
apparently believed that gender preferences in
certain areas (should one’s gender really be a plus in
getting a contract?) was discriminatory. So, it is hard
to say they were trying to promote sex
discrimination by voting for Proposal 04-2, since
they shortly banned it in Proposal 06-2.
Perhaps the People, with their common sense
that is often wiser than the ideas of some academics
or activists, realized that in a marriage setting,
gender-diversity is not discriminatory: it may even
be mandatory for optimal upbringing of children.
Vill. A SEXUAL-ORIENTATION-
DISCRIMINATION CLAIM IS NOT VIABLE;
AND, UPHOLDING SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE
BANS WOULD NOT SUPPORT EMPLOYMENT/
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS
And upholding Respondents’ marriage laws would
not estop this Court from finding that gays suffer
illegal discrimination in employment or other fields
unrelated to marriage. For example, since gay people
person can presumably flip hamburgers as well as
heterosexuals can, it might be considered irrational
for restaurateurs to fire burger-flippers for being
gay. But same-sex marriage is distinguishable from
business-related laws or private decisions.
After all, gay athletes Michael Sam and Jason
Collins of the NFL and NBA might be superb at
their sports, but that does not mean they can get
pregnant, breast-feed, or serve as female role
models.
26
The Court could someday, if desired, adopt
heightened scrutiny re homosexuality vis-d-vis
employment or other non-marital issues. (Amicus is
not recommending heightened scrutiny, only saying
that rational-basis scrutiny re same-sex marriage
does not rule out higher scrutiny elsewhere.) This
kind of bifurcated scrutiny has been done before, see,
e.g., Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432, 439
(1982) (applying strict scrutiny to alienage, but a
lower level of scrutiny re political classifications).
Indeed, it would be strange for the Court to
declare mandatory national legalized same-sex
marriage, when mandatory national employment/
housing sexual-orientation-nondiscrimination
measures do not exist yet. “Cart before the horse.”
See also, e.g., Dan Chmielewski, Ronald Reagan
on Gay Rights, Liberal OC, June 9, 2008,'5 on the
Briggs Initiative, a 1978 California ballot measure
banning gay teachers from public schools,
Reagan met with initiative
opponents[,] and, ultimately, at the risk
of offending his anti-gay supporters in
the coming presidential election, wrote
in his newspaper column: “I don't
approve of teaching a so-called gay life
style in our schools, but there is already
adequate legal machinery to deal with
such problems if and when they arise.”
Id. However, Reagan was only protecting some
employment for gays, and said explicitly, “I don’t
15 http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/06/09/ronald-reagan-on-
gay-nights/.
27
approve of teaching a so-called gay life style[.]” Jd.
And government giving same-sex unions the honor of
marriage, teaches children and others that the
sexual lifestyle in same-sex marriage is just as
healthy as a heterosexual lifestyle. See Olmstead v.
United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928): “Our
government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.”
(Brandeis, J., dissenting from the judgment)
IX. SODOMY AS CANCER, AIDS, AND INJURY
VECTOR; AND SODOMY-NORMING AND -
EXAMPLING FOR CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX
MARRIAGES
On the note of “healthiness”, supra: another
reason to disallow same-sex marriage is that
subsidizing relations based on sodomy may increase
their number, although they are a risk factor for
disease, injury, or death. E.z.,
Anal sex is considered a high-risk
sexual practice because of the
vulnerability of the anus and rectum{,
which] can easily tear and permit
disease transmission[, resulting in] the
risk of HIV transmission being higher
for anal intercourse than for vaginal
intercourse[.]
Wikipedia, Anal sex'§ (citations, including internal,
omitted).
16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal sex (as of Mar. 19, 2015, at
16:17 GMT).
28
There are other deadly problems with sodomy
besides HIV/AIDS, such as cancer. See, e.g., Matt
Sloane, Fewer teens having oral sex, The Chart,
CNN, Aug. 17, 2012, 10:41 a.m.,!7 “It’s widely
accepted that there is an increased number of head
and neck cancers today due to changes in sexual
practices. . specifically, an increase in oral sex,
said Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the
American Cancer Society.” Id.
See also Gay Men’s Health Crisis, The Bottom
Line on Rectal Microbicide Research (undated, but
about a Jan. 23, 2013 presentation), !* “Unprotected
anal intercourse is 10 to 20 times more likely to
result in HIV infection compared to unprotected
vaginal intercourse[, and] is a significant driver in
the global HIV epidemic among gay men and
transgender women{[.]” Jd.
Disease-transmission aside, sodomy also causes
physical injury, since it includes practices like
“fisting”, i.e., putting a fist—or two—., into the birth
canal, since women lack certain anatomy men have
that would substitute for a fist. See, e.g., Nat’l Ctr.
for Biotech. Info., U.S. Nat'l Libr. of Med., Nat'l
Insts. of Health, Vaginal “fisting” as a cause of
death., PubMed.gov (undated)!9 (young woman dies
from vaginal fisting) (citation omitted).
This all proves that sodomy is a comparative
vector of injury and disease. (And because of science,
'7 http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/17/fewer-teens-having-
oral-sex/.
18 http://www.gmhc.org/news-and-events/events-calendar/the-
bottom-line-on-rectal-microbicide-research.
189 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2929548.
29
not relying on moralistic or Biblical reasons. One
does not need to be religious to fear AIDS.)
Thus, while under the “negative liberty” of
Lawrence, States cannot outlaw consensual non-
commercial adult sodomy, see id., States are not
obliged to endorse or subsidize an activity, same-sex
marriage, whose physical base is sodomy. While
marriage is not only about sex, it is still
substantially about sex. Traditional marriage
implicitly valorizes heterosexual sex, see, e.g.,
“(Mjarriage._ . is the foundation of the family”,
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888). Thus,
State-blessed same-sex marriage implicitly valorizes
homosexual sex, the only type anatomically possible
therein. The People have a right to withhold such
valorization. (Cf. the U.S. 12-month restriction on
gay men’s blood donations. Also, incest prohibitions
are partly about the “health reason” of avoiding
genetically-damaged offspring. Therefore, health is
legally allowable as a restrictive factor re marriage.)
There is theoretical evidence of how same-sex
parents sodomy-norm children, as mentioned supra
at 13 (Boucai praises sodomy-norming effect). There
is testimonial evidence, see, e.g., Rivka Edelman,
Robert Oscar Lopez, & Dawn Stefanowicz, Children
of Gay Parents, Part 1 of 4, in Jephthah’s Daughters
(Lopez & Edelman, eds.) (2015), p. 50, where Lopez
describes how the homosexual atmosphere of his
same-sex-parented home, and his lack of a father,
drove him to become a homosexual prostitute, see id.
at 53. And there is scientific evidence, see Judith
Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual
Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Am. Soc. Rev. 159
(2001),
30
Children raised by lesbian co-parents
should and do seem to grow up more
open to homoerotic relationships. . . .
... [(C]hildren of lesbigay parents
appear to express a significant increase
in homoeroticism|[.]
Id. at 178. Stacey and Biblarz nevertheless support
same-sex marriage, see id. passim, but they candidly
note, “It is neither intellectually honest nor
politically wise to base a claim for justice on grounds
that may prove falsifiable empirically.” Jd. at 178.
(I.e., they refuse to suppress research results proving
sodomy-norming by same-sex parentage.) However,
not Stacey and Biblarz, but the People, should decide
whether an increased rate of homosexual behavior
and sodomy among same-sex-parented children is a
reason not to grant a marriage license to same-sex
couples.
(See, e.g., CDC, HIV Among Youth (undated)”°,
“Most new HIV infections among youth occur among
gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in
estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to
2010.” Id. Respondents are not obliged to norm
lifestyles leading to further infections.)
A State has compelling reason for not raising to
the status of marriage a lifestyle which, unless
chaste, is based in inherently risky or deadly
behaviors. (By contrast: policing, for disease,
heterosexuals who want to get married or stay
married, would be impractical for essentially the
reasons supra at 16-17 on policing fertility.)
20 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/age/youth/.
31
X. MANY ARGUMENTS FOR MANDATORY
LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WOULD ALSO
SUPPORT LEGALIZING POLYGAMY
And there are few arguments for same-sex
marriage that could not be made for polygamy. See,
e.g., Patricia, Our America with Lisa Ling — “Modern
Polygamy” a New Perspective on an Old Taboo, The
Daily OWN, Oct. 24, 2011,?! “Lisa [Ling] introduced
a group of all women who were meeting with a gay
activist for training. They were determined to fight
for their rights and lifestyle[, and] claim to want the
ability to have their children not feel like second
class citizens.” Jd. So, polygamists are actually
training with gay activists, see id., and using “rights”
or “protecting our children from animus” arguments
to legalize polygamy, exactly as same-sex couples do.
Sauce for geese may cover ganders too.
Some may claim that polygamy/polyamory is
inherently dangerous and unequal. However, what if
there were an isogamous multipair marriage
(“IMM”), “iso” (“equal”) plus “gamous” (“marriage”),
which had an even, sex-balanced number of
partners? E.g., a tetrad of two men group-marrying
two women: an “intimate quadrilateral” States could
set upper bounds, e.g., ten people (five pairs) would
be too many. But “equality” would reign, and gender-
balance. How, then, could someone who believes in
the fallacious “fundamental right to non-traditional
marriage” that Petitioners proffer, complain about
an “IMM”? See, e.g., Martha Nussbaum, A Right to
Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law,
21 http://www.thedailyown.com/our-america-with-lisa-ling-
modern-polygamy-a-new-perspective-on-an-old-taboo.
32
Dissent, Summer 200922 (not only supporting same-
sex marriage but also claiming “legal restriction .
would not tell against a regime of sex-equal
polygamy’).
See also, e.g., Sheff Article, supra at 22, where
Sheff, having researched polyamorous families for 15
years, concludes, “The kids who participated in my
research were in amazingly good shape”, id. (Though
many polyamorous families were white and wealthy,
many were far from wealthy, see id.) So if, see id.,
some social science shows polyamory is not harmful
to children: then, logically, polyamorists’
“fundamental right to marry” should not be impeded,
lest their children be “harmed and humiliated”.
Some question why children conceived or adopted
by same-sex couples should not profit from their
parents becoming married. However, this applies
equally to polygamists’ children. (Also, marriage is
given as an ideal, whereas adoption is largely to help
children without biological parents. So, a State-
licensed ideal of same-sex marriage has
motherlessness, fatherlessness, and sodomy-norming
problems.)
Also, if some say that the Court has previously
shown more respect for same-sex privacy and
relationships than for polygamy: if there is a super-
fundamental right to marriage, the right to marry
whom you will would cover anybody, regardless of
number. And Lawrence “does not involve whether
the government must give formal recognition to any
relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”
22 http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-right-to-marry-
same-sex-marriage-and-constitutional-law.
33
Id. at 578 (Kennedy, J.). When Lawrence says, “[Re]
personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation
[,] family relationships, [and] child rearing[, gays]
may seek autonomy for these purposes”, id. at 574,
that logically refers to free-speech actions like voting
and lobbying for same-sex marriage, in line with
One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958) (upholding
gays’ free-speech rights). If Lawrence at 574 (gays
may seek autonomy) contradicts Lawrence at 578
(same-sex marriage not endorsed), then Lawrence is
self-contradicting.
And re any argument that same-sex-marriage
bans prevent homosexuals from marrying anyone at
all: this does not address homosexuals’ ability to
move to another State, just as enamored first cousins
may have to do likewise. And people who want
polygamous—r, e.g., incestuous—relationships,
may want no other partner(s) but their chosen, and
feel their lives are ruined by denial of marriage.
And, some assert that a homosexual soldier who
risks his life for America should ipso facto have the
right to same-sex marriage. However, see Potter v.
Murray City, 585 F. Supp. 1126 (1984), 760 F.2d
1065 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 849 (1985), re
polygamist Utah policeman Royston Potter. He lost
his employment case, i.e., Murray City fired him for
his polygamy; but the parties stipulated that Potter
had treated his wives and children quite well, see
585 F. Supp. at 1129. As a policeman, Potter risked
his life for the community, just like a soldier. But he
was still not given a right to the type of marriage he
wanted, see id. at 1142-43. And this Court let that
stand, 474 U.S. 849.
34
So even when sexual minorities can show they
raise families as well as traditional families, see 585
F. Supp. at 1129, it is still constitutional! to treat
them differently. (Indisputably, licensing
polygamists’ marriage would lessen stigma for them
and their children; yet, the long-term effect of
licensing would be to create more polygamy, which is
not desirable.)
Finally, see Hilary White, Group marriage is next,
admits Dutch ‘father’ of gay ‘marriage’,
LifeSiteNews, Mar. 12, 2013, 5:58 p.m.:25 “Boris
Dittrich, the homosexual activist called the ‘father’ of
Dutch gay ‘marriage’, has admitted that group
marriages of three or more people, is the next,
inevitable logical step[.]” Id. The Court should avoid
the slippery slope presented.
XI. SOCIAL SCIENCE ON SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE IS STILL UNSETTLED, THOUGH
SOME SUPPORTS RESPONDENTS
The DeBoer trial court highly praised research
purporting to show no difference between same-sex
and diverse-sex parenting; and that court practically
savaged research which asserted otherwise. See 973
F. Supp. 2d 757, 761-68 (E.D. Mich. 2014). However,
there are various authorities, such as Walter
Schumm and Paul Sullins, whose research supports
Respondents, and whose work the trial court did not
consider. Thus, social science is not conclusive one
way or the other.
23 http://www .lifesitenews.com/news/group -marriage-is-next-
admits-dutch-father-of-gay-marriage.
35
A striking example of this inconclusiveness
relates to Mircea Trandafir, who authored an award-
winning 2009 study, The effect of same-sex marriage
laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from the
Netherlands.” It says, “I [Trandafir] find that the
marriage rate rose after the registered partnership
law but fell after the same-sex marriage law.” Id. at
title/Abstract page.
Also:
One relatively straightforward way
to gauge the decline in the marriage
rate is to compare the largest gap
between the actual marriage rate in the
Netherlands and the synthetic control .
This [evidence] suggests that the
decline in the marriage rate after 2001
is rather significant[.]
Id. at 24. Trandafir offers as a plausible explanation
for the decline, “the end-of-marriage argument: the
same-sex marriage law changes the value of
marriage for some couples, who choose not to marry
anymore.” Id.
Finally, some especially significant statistics:
The marriage rate of men over the
1995—2005 period is, on average, 2.99
percent and is estimated to fall by
0.16 percentage points after the same-
sex marriage law, compared to a long-
term downward trend of 0.05
percentage points per year. In the case
24 Available at http://www.iza.org/conference_files/TAM2010/
trandafir_m6039.pdf (courtesy of Institute for the Study of
Labor).
36
of women, the average marriage rate is
4.07 percent and the decline is 0.65
percentage points[,] while the
downward trend is 0.05 percentage
points per year.
Id. at 16-17. 0.65 percentage-points decline
compared to 4.07 percentage points, id. at 17, isa
steep, significant drop in the female marriage rate,
almost one-sixth.
The bizarre part of the story is that Trandafir
then “updated” the study, but to say nearly the exact
opposite thing, see the version at 51 Demography
317 (2014).25 The 2014 study claims “an insignificant
decrease [in either different-sex marriages or
marriages in general] after the same-sex marriage
law”, id. at 3. So, while acknowledging damage to
traditional marriage, see id., Trandafir calls it
“insignificant”— directly contradicting his 2009
study calling the damage “significant”, id. at 24. The
2014 study, see id., completely and unexplainedly
omits, inter alia, the 2009 version’s statistic re the
huge 0.65 percentage-point decline from the 4.07
percentage-point female marriage rate, id. at 17. In
fact, the 2014 version does not even mention the
2009 version, or the reasons for the total turnaround
re “significant damage” These gross material
omissions are incomprehensible, and make the 2014
report more of a near-polar opposite to the 2009
report, not an “update”
25 Available at http://findresearcher.sdu.dk:8080/portal/files/
80662951/MS_2012 063.pdf (courtesy of Syddansk
Universitet).
37
Amicus accuses no one of bad faith, but the very
strange contradiction between the two versions of
Trandafir’s report almost reminds Amicus of what
Boucai said, supra at 13, about gay-marriage
advocates’ omitting or distorting the record re
bisexuality. Mandatory-same-sex-marriage
proponents have not told the full story, in social
science or otherwise; and Amicus hopes this Court
takes account of crucial information like, “The
results suggest that same-sex marriage leads to a
fall in the different-sex marriage rate,” Trandafir
2009 Rep. at title/Abstract page.
XII. RATIONAL BASIS IS THE RIGHT LEVEL
OF SCRUTINY; AND THE REASONS
ADDUCED HERE COMPRISE VERY
COMPELLING STATE INTERESTS
But even if heightened scrutiny were somehow
necessary instead of rational basis, the various bases
adduced supra, either singly or together, form very
compelling government interests.
Even strict scrutiny is met. E.g., the interest in
gender diversity of parents seems far more
compelling than racial/gender diversity at colleges,
and is met in a narrowly-tailored manner. People
aren't arrested for not entering opposite-sex
marriages, or harassed by State billboards or
mandatory “get married” classes; rather, people are
just not actively supported by government for
entering same-sex marriage.
The reasonably-least-restrictive means are used
as well. For example, re diverse-gender role models,
would it really be less restrictive to have the
Government provide two male spouses a visiting
38
female breast-feeder and role model for children? or
give two female wives a “rent-a-man” as a male role
model for children?
Similarly, with the disease- and injury-risking
practice of nonreproductive sex—and reduction of
AIDS and cancer is a compelling interest—-,
Lawrence prohibits punishing sodomy. But it need
not be encouraged, either: i.e., no State “merit
badge” or financial benefit need be given to same-sex
marriage. (People are legally free to engage in
private sodomy all they want, or marry at any
church or synagogue which marries gays.)
XIII. SEEKING PRINCIPLED “MIDDLE
GROUND”, IF NEEDED, IN THESE CASES
While Respondents deserve total victory, the
Court may somehow prefer to seek a middle path.
One inappropriate “middle path” would be to force
States to recognize same-sex marriages from other
States, while preserving for each State the right not
to license same-sex marriages itself. This
“compromise” would be fallacious, in that this age of
cheap, easy travel, and perhaps one day same-sex
marriages recognized over the Internet, would make
a State’s own “public policy” meaningless, if the
State must recognize alien same-sex-marriage
licenses.
(Those same-sex couples moving to a State
without same-sex marriage are at least “assuming
the risk” by choice; as opposed to their children, who
are choiceless about lack of father or mother.)
What may be a more reasonable “middle ground”
would be to recognize the status quo: that is, any
39
same-sex marriages that have already taken place,
could be recognized, and those couples could serve as
an “experimental body” to see how they and their
children do. However, bans on future same-sex
marriages would stand.
Also, for example, bans on civil unions might be
overturned, so that there would be mandatory
legality of civil unions, or “domestic partnerships” or
a “reciprocal benefits contract”, that would offer
same-sex couples some legal protection.
Amicus is definitely not recommending the Court
impose such an arrangement on any State; he is
merely saying that such an arrangement would be
less damaging than mandatory national same-sex
marriage.
Too, a “middle ground” already exists in that the
federal government currently offers federal tax
breaks to same-sex couples who marry in any State.
This resembles the offering of federal healthcare
subsidies on HHS-run exchanges (which Amicus
supports) even if a State did not establish an
exchange. So, same-sex couples are already receiving
massive relief and protection (especially given that
federal taxes are often higher than State taxes), and
a “middle ground” thus exists between States’
choices on same-sex marriage, and federal activism
in providing tax benefits to same-sex couples.
And if, arguendo, every recent State ban on same-
sex marriage is somehow “fatally infected with
animus [or other bad element]”: the Court could
strike down those bans, but not strike down the
States’ underlying laws, of centuries’ provenance,
40
upholding traditional marriage. As well, if a State
ban has “bad element A” (animus) mixed with “more
worthy elements B and C” (re fertility, or the good of
complementary-gender parenting, etc.), the Court
could delineate what elements are good or bad, so
that a struck-down referendum or law could be
reenacted—but now sans any forbidden element—by
the People.
x*x* *
What is the “American People”? A diverse and
diversely-scattered crew, among other things:
straights, gays, polys, etc. To let them self-define on
a public level, by defining—through majority vote—
the public honors, subsidies, and licenses in their
region, their State, seems fair. If the Court does not
allow this, in a matter as fundamental as defining
marriage, then the experiment in democracy known
as America has truly failed.
The Court’s own vote here may have a tincture of
unavoidable tragedy, in that each side, Petitioners or
Respondents, may be disappointed and damaged,
even on a constitutionally-injurious level, if it loses.
But America’s story allows one to escape tragedy, to
have a second act. Same-sex couples, if they desire
marriage, are mobile citizens who can “escape” to a
State that offers marriage. But their children, if any,
have no, or very little, recourse, scant escape, from
their motherlessness or fatherlessness. There is no
second act for them. States should be allowed to
maintain a “safe zone”, wherein the stigma and
humiliation of motherlessness/fatherlessness is not
lauded and abetted by the State, and a same-sex |
couple’s parentage and marriage are not given
license.
41
If the People of every State someday do not want
children to have that safe zone any more, so will it
be. But if traditional marriage is reaching its sunset,
then the Court should let it sunset only if the People
want that. Grutter allowed 25 years, see 539 U.S. at
343, to sunset affirmative action, a fairly recent
practice which uses explicit racial preferences. For
the Court not to allow at least that quarter-century
space, then, to allow traditional marriage, a
tradition of millennia, to sunset out, would be
absurd, and unjust. The People can work out same-
sex-marriage issues themselves.
Otherwise put: if solely-traditional marriage must
perish from this Nation, at least let it not be because
“government of the people, by the people, for the
people”26 perishes here, perishes because the Court
does not trust the People enough. Generations have
died for the democratic ideal; keeping faith with
them, with both our fathers and mothers who died
for that ideal, would be the path of greatest honor.
Future generations, well aware that the Fourteenth
Amendment is not violated by letting children follow
the Fifth Commandment, having, cherishing, and
honoring father and mother, may be deeply grateful
that this Court follows that honorable path.
CONCLUSION
Amicus respectfully asks the Court to uphold the
judgments of the court of appeals; and humbly
thanks the Court for its time and consideration.
26 President Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (Nov. 19,
1863).
42
April 3, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
David Boyle
Counsel of Record
P.O. Box 15143
Long Beach, CA 90815
dbo@boyleslaw.org
(734) 904-6132
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.