3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Katherine Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Nimrata (Nikki) Randhawa Haley, in her ) official capacity as Governor of South ) Carolina; Alan M. Wilson, in his official ) Capacity as Attorney General, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________) Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-02351-JFA

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS

Defendants Governor Haley and Attorney General Wilson, answering the Complaint herein, allege the following: FOR A FIRST DEFENSE 1. The Defendants deny each and every allegation of the Complaint not hereinafter

specifically admitted. 2. As to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, the Defendants admit only that Plaintiffs

have brought this suit, but they deny that the suit has legal merit or that the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. They deny that Plaintiffs were married in a state in that the District of Columbia is not a state. The Plaintiffs lack standing to bring any claims as to other same sex couples. 3. As to Paragraph 2, the Defendants admit only that they were issued a marriage

certificate by the District of Columbia that states a marriage date of April 6, 2012. They crave reference to that document and the laws of the District of Columbia as to the legal effect of that document and its contents in that jurisdiction.. Whether that marriage would be recognized by

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 2 of 10

the federal government under United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) calls for a legal conclusion that Defendants are not required to admit or deny. To the extent that, arguendo, the Defendants must address Windsor and Federal recognition, they crave reference to that decision and Federal law, if any, that may be relevant and deny any allegations inconsistent therewith. They deny that Plaintiffs are treated as legal strangers in South Carolina except that they admit that their marriage in the District of Columbia is not recognized or required to be recognized in South Carolina. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs marriage is comparable to the opposite-sex marriages of first cousins or a young partner in other jurisdictions, and Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny whether such marriages are routinely accepted in South Carolina, and therefore, deny such allegations. They deny the last sentence of Paragraph 2. 4. As to Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, the defendants deny that Plaintiffs have the

standing to raise claims as to the treatment of other same-sex couples and deny that such claims are ripe. The Plaintiffs have not alleged that they have been denied any benefit on the basis of marital status. As to whether same sex couples in South Carolina are denied benefits or legal protections based upon the absence of recognition of their marriage, the Defendants crave reference to the applicable laws and deny any allegations inconsistent therewith. 5. As to Paragraph 4, the Defendants admit only that the State of South Carolina

does not recognize their District of Columbia marriage. They deny that the lack of recognition is intended to or does, in fact, communicate that their relationship is unworthy. They deny that Plaintiffs have standing to raise claims about the effect of South Carolinas lack of recognition of same sex marriage upon their children or other same sex couples and their children. As to the alleged effect of the lack of recognition of their marriage on Plaintiffs, their children or other

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 3 of 10

couples and their children, the Defendants deny that South Carolina law is the cause of any of the alleged concerns or harms, and therefore, deny those allegations set forth in the paragraph. To the extent that the Plaintiffs claim economic harm, the Defendants crave reference to any laws under which Plaintiffs claim to be denied benefits based upon marital status and deny any allegations inconsistent therewith. 6. Paragraph 5 calls for legal conclusions that Defendants are not required to admit

or deny. To the extent that, arguendo, the Defendants must address those allegations, they deny Paragraph 5 including any allegation that Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a source of rights for them in this case. 7. As to Paragraph 6, the Defendants admit only that the suit has been brought and

requests relief, but they deny that this action has legal merit and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. They deny that Plaintiffs have standing to make claims on behalf of other same-sex couples. 8. The Defendants deny Paragraph 7. They deny that Plaintiffs have standing to

make claims on behalf of other same-sex couples. 9. 10. The Defendants admit Paragraphs 8 and 9. As to Paragraph 10, the Defendants admit only that the District of Columbia

issued the Marriage Certificate attached to the Complaint. They crave reference to the laws of the District of Columbia as to the legal effect of the Certificate in that jurisdiction. They deny that the marriage is required to be recognized by or in the State of South Carolina. 11. As to Paragraph 11, the Defendants admit only that the Defendant Haley is

Governor of South Carolina and that she has those duties and authority given to that Office by the South Carolina Constitution and statutes. Although the provisions of the South Carolina

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 4 of 10

Constitution and statutes regarding same sex marriage are in effect in this State, State law does not give the Governor direct enforcement authority as to those provisions. 12. The Defendants admit Paragraph 12, but deny that this suit has legal merit and

deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. 13. As to Paragraphs 13 and 14, the Defendants admit that this Court has jurisdiction

and venue as to this suit, but deny that this suit has legal merit and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. 14. As to Paragraph 15, the Defendants crave reference to the cited statute, S.C. Code

Ann. 20-1-15, and deny any allegations inconsistent therewith. They deny any allegation or suggestion that same-sex marriages were permitted under State law or recognized by this State prior to the adoption of this statute. 15. As to Paragraph 16, the Defendants crave reference to S.C. Const. art. XVII, 15,

and deny any allegations inconsistent therewith. They deny any allegation or suggestion that same-sex marriages were permitted under State law or recognized by this State prior to the adoption of this provision. 16. Paragraph 17 quotes case law, and the Defendants are not required to answer such

allegations. To the extent that, arguendo, a response is required, the Defendants deny that the quoted cases entitle Plaintiffs to relief in this case and deny that same-sex couples are entitled to the same treatment as opposite-sex couples under the law as to marriage in this state. 17. 18. The Defendants deny Paragraph 18. As to Paragraph 19 and its subparagraphs, the Defendants crave reference to the

laws establishing the alleged benefits, privileges, responsibilities, legal protections and statutes

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 5 of 10

and deny any allegations inconsistent therewith and deny that Plaintiffs have standing to make such claims as to any benefits or rights, etc. for which they have not applied or filed claims. 19. As to Paragraph 20, Defendants admit only that Plaintiff Bradacs is a public

employee, that her marriage to Plaintiff Goodwin is not recognized by the State of South Carolina, and that, on information and belief, her health insurance policy through the State will not provide coverage for Plaintiff Goodwin. On information and belief, the Defendants deny that Plaintiff Bradacs biological children are not covered under her State policy. 20. As to Paragraph 21, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to paragraph 21 except that, on information and belief, they admit that Plaintiffs cannot claim a standard deduction on their Federal tax return while residing in South Carolina. They crave reference to Veterans Administration laws and policies as to

whether Plaintiff Goodwin would receive enhanced disability payments if Plaintiffs marriage were recognized by the State. The survivors beneficiary claim is not ripe, and is therefore, denied, because neither Plaintiff is deceased. 21. As to Paragraph 22, Defendants crave reference to the laws establishing the

alleged benefits and protections deny any allegations inconsistent therewith and deny that Plaintiffs have standing to make such claims as to any benefits or rights, etc. for which they have not applied or filed claims and for which they are not eligible for reasons other than marital status such as benefits based upon age. The Plaintiffs lack standing to make claims for other same-sex couples. 22. As to Paragraphs 23 and 24, the Plaintiffs lack standing to make claims for other

same-sex couples. As to the any alleged affect of the denial of South Carolinas recognition of

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 6 of 10

their marriage on Plaintiffs, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to those allegations and therefore deny them. 23. Paragraph 25 calls for legal conclusions that Defendants are not required to admit

or deny. To the extent that, arguendo, the Defendants must address those allegations, they deny them. 24. Paragraph 26 calls for legal conclusions that Defendants are not required to

admit or deny. To the extent that, arguendo, the Defendants must address those allegations, they deny that the prohibitions are unconstitutional in any respect and under any level of scrutiny. They deny that Windsor supports Plaintiffs claims. 25. Paragraph 27 is a cumulative paragraph to which no response is necessary. To the

extent that, arguendo, a response is necessary, the Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to the previous allegations and paragraphs of the Complaint and reassert them. 26. Paragraphs 28 and 29 calls for legal conclusions that Defendants are not required

to admit or deny. To the extent that, arguendo, the Defendants must address those allegations, they crave reference to the Fourteenth Amendment and specifically deny that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. 27. As to Paragraph 30, the Plaintiffs lack standing to make claims for other same-sex

couples. The Defendants deny that Plaintiffs or other same-sex couples have a fundamental right to same-sex marriage and deny that State law denies them any such rights. 28. The Defendants deny Paragraphs 31-33 including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs

allegation that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right.

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 7 of 10

29.

Paragraph 34 is a cumulative paragraph to which no response is necessary. To the

extent that, arguendo, a response is necessary, the Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to the previous allegations and paragraphs of the Complaint and reassert them. 30. As to Paragraph 35, the Defendants crave reference to the Equal Protection

Clause for a complete statement of that clause. 31. As to Paragraph 36, the Plaintiffs lack standing to make claims for other same-sex

couples. The Defendants deny that Paragraph. 32. 33. marriage. 34. 35. Defendants deny Paragraphs 39 and 40. Paragraph 41 is a cumulative paragraph to which no response is necessary. To the Defendants deny Paragraph 37. Defendants deny Paragraph 38 at least to the extent that it applies to same-sex

extent that, arguendo, a response is necessary, the Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to the previous allegations and paragraphs of the Complaint and reassert them. 36. As to Paragraph 42, the Defendants crave reference to the Equal Protection

Clause for a complete statement of that clause. 37. As to Paragraph 43, the Defendants crave reference to art XVII, 15 for a

complete statement of its provisions. 38. 39. or deny. Defendants deny Paragraph 44. Paragraph 45 calls for legal conclusions that Defendants are not required to admit They deny that limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates any

Constitutional provisions including those pertaining to sex or gender. 40. Defendants deny Paragraph 46.

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 8 of 10

41.

Paragraph 47 is a cumulative paragraph to which no response is necessary. To the

extent that, arguendo, a response is necessary, the Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to the previous allegations and paragraphs of the Complaint and reassert them. 42. As to Paragraphs 48 and 49, the Defendants crave reference to the Constitutional

provision and statute for a complete statement of those provisions. 43. The Defendants admit Paragraph 50 but crave reference to the pertinent statute

and Constitutional provision for a complete statement thereof. 44. 45. for Relief. FOR A SECOND DEFENSE 46. The Plaintiffs lack standing to raise any claims on behalf of their children or other The Defendants deny Paragraphs 51and 52. The Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the Relief in the Prayer

same-sex couples and their children. FOR A THIRD DEFENSE 47. The Plaintiffs lack standing to make any claims for a denial of benefits or

privileges or other such matters on the basis of marriage and such claims are not ripe if they have not applied for such benefits or privileges and had their application denied. FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE 48. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not support causes of action against State

officials and does not support the instant suit against the Defendants.

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 9 of 10

FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE 49. The State of South Carolina is not required to give recognition to the marriage of

the Plaintiffs in the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. 1738C of the Defense of Marriage Act and other authority. FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE 50. Plaintiffs claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses must be

dismissed under the controlling precedent of Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), a similar case in which the Supreme Court found no substantial federal question. Baker is binding on the District Court of South Carolina. FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE 51. To require the State of South Carolina to recognize same-sex marriages from

other jurisdictions, or to permit such marriages itself, would be contrary to the Tenth Amendment and the sovereign interests of the State. FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE 52. This action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. FOR A NINTH DEFENSE 53. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FOR A TENTH DEFENSE 54. Plaintiffs are not entitled to costs and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Plaintiffs Complaint, the Defendants pray as follows:

3:13-cv-02351-JMC

Date Filed 11/14/13

Entry Number 29

Page 10 of 10

1.

That judgment for the Defendants be entered as to the Complaint and that the

relief sought by the Plaintiff be denied. 2. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

ALAN WILSON Attorney General Federal ID No.10457 ROBERT D. COOK Solicitor General Federal ID No. 285 Email: AGRCOOK@SCAG.GOV /s/ J. Emory Smith, Jr. J. EMORY SMITH, JR. Deputy Solicitor General Federal ID No. 3908 Email: AGESMITH@SCAG.GOV Post Office Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Phone: (803) 734-3680 Fax: (803) 734-3677 Counsel for Defendants Governor and Attorney General

10