Robicheaux v. Caldwell

8/11/2019 Robicheaux v. Caldwell

1/32

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

EASTERN DI STRI CT OF LOUI SI ANA

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

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

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

ORDER AND REASONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

j udgment i s GRANTED.

Backgr ound

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 32


2/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La. Const . ar t . 12, 15.

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

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

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

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

2



3/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3



4/32

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

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

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

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

Hospi t al s, as def endant s.

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

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

I .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4



5/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5



6/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I I .

A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6



7/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6

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

7



8/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8



9/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9



10/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10



11/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i nstr uct s:

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

11



12/32


13/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

such mat t ers:

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

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

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

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

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

I d. at 464- 65.

13



14/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14



15/32

B.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15



16/32

Loui si ana' s l aws and Const i t ut i on ar e di r ect l y r el at ed t o

achi evi ng mar r i age' s hi st or i cal l y pr eemi nent pur pose of l i nki ng

chi l dr en t o t hei r bi ol ogi cal par ent s. Loui si ana' s r egi me pays

r espect t o t he democr at i c pr ocess; t o vi gor ous debat e. To

pr edi ct abl e cont r over sy, of cour se. The f act t hat mar r i age has

many di f f er i ng, even perhaps unpr oved di mensi ons, does not r ender

Loui si ana' s deci si on i r r at i onal . Nor does the opi ni on of a set of

soci al sci ent i st s ( ar dent l y di sput ed by many ot her s, i t shoul d be

not ed) t hat ot her associ at i ve f or ms may be equal l y st abl e, or t he

vi ew t hat such j udgment s vi l i f y a gr oup ( even t hough one f i nds t hem

i n a maj or i t y of t he st at es, but not i n al l st at es) . 10 Even t he

f act t hat t he st at e' s pr ecept s wor k t o one gr oup' s di sadvant age

does not mandate t hat t hey ser ve no r at i onal basi s. See Romer, 517

U. S. at 632. The Cour t i s persuaded t hat a meani ng of what i s

mar r i age t hat has endur ed i n hi st or y f or t housands of year s, and

pr evai l s i n a maj or i t y of st at es t oday, i s not uni ver sal l y

i r r at i onal on t he const i t ut i onal gr i d. See Ki mel , 528 U. S. at 84;

Feb. 21, 2014) ; McGee v. Col e, No. 13- 24068, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S10864 ( S. D. W. Va. J an. 29, 2014) . But cf . Bi shop, 2014 U. S. App.LEXI S 13733, at *148 ( Kel l y, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ngi n par t ) ( "Absent a f undament al r i ght , t r adi t i onal r at i onal basi sequal pr ot ect i on pr i nci pl es shoul d appl y, and appar ent l y as a

maj or i t y of t hi s panel bel i eves, t he Pl ai nt i f f s cannot pr evai l ont hat basi s . ") .

10 Thi s Cour t does not ent er t he di sput e of whi ch "sci ence"on t hi s i ssue i s cor r ect . The cont ent i ous debat e i n soci al sci encel i t er at ur e about what i s " mar r i age" i n t oday' s wor l d does not dr i veor i nf or m t he Cour t ' s deci si on.

16



17/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17



18/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pr ot ect i on. 12

C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

observed:

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

18



19/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. 3d 1337, 1343 (11t h

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19



20/32

ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Ther e exi st s t hen, a cent r al not i on t hat

anchor s t he doct r i ne of subst ant i ve due pr ocess: t he i ndi spensabl e

pr esence of a f undament al r i ght .

To est abl i sh a subst ant i ve due process vi ol at i on, t he

aggr i eved per son must descr i be t he i nf r i nged r i ght wi t h

par t i cul ar i t y and must est abl i sh i t as deepl y r oot ed i n t hi s

Nat i on' s hi st or y and t r adi t i on. Mal agon de Fuent es v. Gonzal es,

462 F. 3d 498, 505 ( 5t h Ci r . 2006) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I f a r i ght i s so "deepl y r oot ed" as to be

f undament al at i t s cor e, a mor e exact i ng scr ut i ny i s r equi r ed; i f

not , t he Cour t appl i es t he l ess demandi ng r at i onal basi s r evi ew.

I d.

Pl ai nt i f f s f er vent l y i nsi st t hat Loui si ana' s l aws and

Const i t ut i on vi ol at e t hei r r i ght t o subst ant i ve due pr ocess by

depr i vi ng t hemof t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r y. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue

t hat Loui si ana subst ant i al l y bur dens what t hey envi si on as t hei r

f undament al r i ght t o mar r y and t hat st r i ct scr ut i ny i s t he st andar d

of r evi ew t o gui de t hi s Cour t . Def endant s count er , however , t hat

t here i s no f undament al r i ght t o samesex marr i age and t hat

r at i onal basi s revi ew i s appr opr i at e. Def endant s cor r ect l y poi nt

t o Washi ngt on v. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 721, whi ch mandates t hat

pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi de a "car ef ul descri pt i on" of t he asser t ed

f undament al r i ght t o succeed on a subst ant i ve due pr ocess

chal l enge. The Cour t agr ees t hat Gl ucksber g r equi r es a "car ef ul

20



21/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14

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

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

21



22/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22



23/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23



24/32

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

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

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

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

D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24



25/32


26/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shapel ess r esul t .

I I I .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i t even mor e candi dl y:

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

26



27/32

di st i nct f r omt he newl y pur posed r el at i onshi p of a "same-sex mar r i age. " And t hi s f ai l ur e i s even mor e pr onouncedby the maj or i t y' s acknowl edgment t hat samesex marr i agei s a new not i on t hat has not been r ecogni zed f or "most ofour count r y' s hi st or y. " Mor eover , t he maj or i t y f ai l s t oexpl ai n how t hi s new not i on became i ncorporated i nt o t he

t r adi t i onal def i ni t i on of mar r i age except by l i ngui st i cmani pul at i on.

Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at

*71- *72 ( 4t hCi r . J ul y 28, 2014) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . 17

I t woul d no doubt be cel ebr ated t o be i n t he company of t he

near - unani mi t y of t he many ot her f eder al cour t s t hat have spoken t o

t hi s pr essi ng i ssue, i f t hi s Cour t wer e conf i dent i n t he bel i ef

t hat t hose cases pr ovi de a cor r ect gui de.

Cl ear l y, many ot her cour t s wi l l have an oppor t uni t y t o take up

t he i ssue of samesex mar r i age; cour t s of appeal s and, at some

poi nt , t he U. S. Supr eme Cour t . The deci si on of t hi s Cour t i s but

one st udi ed deci si on among many. Our Fi f t h Ci r cui t has not yet

spoken.The depth of passi on i nher ent i n t he i ssues bef or e t hi s Cour t

def i es def i ni t i on. That f eder al cour t s18 t hus f ar have j oi ned i n

17

One case, pr e- Wi ndsor but r at her cl ose i n t i me, Sevci k v.Sandoval , 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 ( D. Nev. 2012) , f r omNevada, st andsapar t f r om t he deci si ons descr i pt i vel y spawned by Wi ndsor and t hecont est s t hat f ol l owed t hr oughout t he nat i on. Pl ai nt i f f s say

l i t t l e, i f anyt hi ng, about Sevci k. See al so Mer r i t t v. At t or neyGen. , No. 13- 215, 2013 WL 6044329 (M. D. La. Nov. 14, 2013) .

18 The Tent h Ci r cui t , i n a spl i t deci si on, has r ecent l yspoken. Ki t chen v. Her ber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S11935 (10t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) . As has t he Four t h Ci r cui t . Bost i cv. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S14298 ( 4t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) .

27



28/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28



29/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29



30/32

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

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

phi l osopher - ki ngs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

30



31/32

t o a st r ong conver sat i on about what i s mar r i age. The cent r al

quest i on t hat must f i r st be asked, i s what i s t he f ai r est f or umf or

t he answer? A new r i ght may or may not be af f i r med by t he

democr at i c pr ocess . "Per haps someday same- gender marr i age wi l l

become par t of t hi s count r y' s hi st or y and t r adi t i on, but t hat i s

not a choi ce t hi s cour t shoul d make. " I d. at *133. As J udge

Ni emeyer bl unt l y wr ot e i n hi s i nsi ght f ul di ssent i n Bost i c:

Because t here i s no f undament al r i ght t o same- sexmar r i age and t her e ar e rat i onal r easons f or notr ecogni zi ng i t , j ust as t her e ar e r at i onal r easons f orr ecogni zi ng i t , I concl ude t hat we, t he Thi r d Br anch,must al l ow t he St at es t o enact l egi sl at i on on t he subj ecti n accor dance wi t h t hei r pol i t i cal pr ocesses. The U. S.Const i t ut i on does not , i n my j udgment , r est r i ct t heSt at es' pol i cy choi ces on t hi s i ssue. I f gi ven t hechoi ce, some St at es wi l l sur el y recogni ze same- sexmar r i age and some wi l l sur el y not . But t hat i s, t o besur e, t he beaut y of f eder al i sm.

2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *109. Feder al i sm i s not ext i nct .

Feder al i sm r emai ns a vi br ant and essent i al component of our

nat i on' s const i t ut i onal st r uct ur e. See Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2697

( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) ( "[ B] ut a St at e' s def i ni t i on of mar r i age

i s t he f oundat i on of t he St at e' s br oader aut hor i t y t o r egul at e t he

subj ect of domest i c r el at i ons wi t h r espect t o t he pr ot ect i on of

of f spr i ng, pr oper t y i nt er est s, and t he enf or cement of mar i t al

r esponsi bi l i t i es. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ) .

For al l of t hese r easons, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Loui si ana' s

Democr acy does not pr esume t hat some subj ect s are ei t her t oodi vi si ve or t oo pr of ound f or publ i c debat e. " I d.

31



32/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRANTED.

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

______________________________ MARTI N L. C. FELDMAN

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE

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


Robicheaux v. Caldwell

Documents