LA Marriage Case

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/ W
NO. 14- 97 & NO. 14- 327

J AMES D. CALDWELL, SECTI ON " F"
LOUI SI ANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Bef or e t he Cour t ar e cr oss mot i ons f or summar y 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 mor e per suasi ve ar gument . The St at e 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 mar r i age t hr ough t he democr at 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 same- sex mar r i age and i t s choi ce not t o
r ecogni ze same- sex 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 same- sex 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 same- sex
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
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 , Sect i 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 same- sex 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 st
onl 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 l
const r ue t hi s const i t ut i on or any st at e l aw t o
r equi r e t hat mar r i age or t he l egal i nci dent s
t her eof be conf er r ed upon any member of any uni on
ot her t han t he uni on of one man and one woman. A
l egal st at us i dent i cal t o or subst ant i al l y si mi l ar
t o t hat of mar r i age f or unmar r i ed i ndi vi dual s shal l
not be val i d or r ecogni zed. No of f i ci al or cour t
of t he st at e of Loui si ana shal l r ecogni ze any
mar r i age cont r act ed i n any ot her j ur i sdi ct i on whi ch
i 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 same
sex vi ol at es a st r ong publ i c pol i cy of t he st at e of
Loui si ana and such a mar r i age cont r act ed i n anot her
st at e shal l not be r ecogni zed i n t hi s st at e f or any
pur pose, i ncl udi ng t he asser t i on of any r i ght or
cl ai mas 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 Code
ar 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 ch
does 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 sewher e i n t he compl ai nt make cl ear t hat t hey mean Sect i on
15. 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
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 same- sex 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 o
deny 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- sex
coupl 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 her
Loui si ana l aws" i n t hei r compl ai nt , pl ai nt i f f s' suppl ement al br i ef
submi t t ed on J ul y 16, 2014 r equest s " decl ar at or y j udgment hol di ng
t 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 . . . and
t 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 ana
Const i t ut i on, def i nes mar r i age as " a l egal r el at i onshi p bet ween a
man and a woman. " Code ar t i cl e 89, si mi l ar t o Code ar t i cl e 3520,
pr ohi bi t s pur por t ed mar r i ages bet ween per sons 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 t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on,
t he Loui si ana Depar t ment of Revenue shal l not
r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages when det er mi ni ng
f i l i ng st at us. I f a t axpayer ' s f eder al f i l i ng
st 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 s
pur suant t o I RS Revenue Rul i ng 2013- 17 [ r ul i ng
t hat same- sex coupl es l egal l y mar r i ed i n
st at es t hat r ecogni ze such mar r i ages wi l l be
t 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 ana
r et ur n as si ngl e, head of househol d or
qual i f yi ng wi dow, as appl i cabl e. The
t axpayer ( s) who f i l ed a f eder al r et ur n
pur suant t o I RS Revenue Rul i ng 2013- 17 may not
f i l e a Loui si ana st at e i ncome t ax r et ur n as
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. The t axpayer
must pr ovi de t he same f eder al i ncome t ax
i nf or mat i on on t he Loui si ana St at e Ret ur n t hat
woul d have been pr ovi ded pr i or t o t he i ssuance
of 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
t ax r et 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 y
j udgment i s pr oper 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 and
Cr edi t Cl ause cl ai m.
4
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 at e. 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 r egar d, t he non- movi ng par t y
must do mor e 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) . Rat her , he must come f or war d 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 same- sex 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 democr at i c pr ocess as cont r ast ed wi t h per sonal ,
genui ne, and si ncer e l i f est yl e choi ces r ecogni 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 car e and have t hat bond r ecogni zed by l aw
as a mar r i age, t hey shoul d be f r ee t o do so, and t hei r choi ce
shoul d be r ecogni zed by l aw as a mar r i age; never mi nd t he 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
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 same- sex
mar r i age, ot her s may be j ust as det er mi ned t hat mar r 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 Pr ot ect i on. The Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Const i t ut i on
commands t hat no st at e shal l deny t o any per son wi t hi n i t s
j ur i sdi ct i on t he equal pr ot 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 t hat
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 ( 5
t 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 ng Hel 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
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 scr ut i ny, and
hei ght ened scr ut 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 ar duous.
When conduct i ng r at 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 wor ks t o t he 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 scr ut 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 cken
same- 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 S
14298 ( 4
t 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 ( 10
t h
Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen
7
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 same- sex mar r i age wi t hi n Loui si ana, and by decl i ni ng t o
r ecogni ze same- sex 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 scr ut 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 expect ed t hat st at e def i ni t i ons woul d ' var y, subj ect t o
v. Heber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10
t h
Ci r . J une
25, 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, 2014
U. 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. Mar ch
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 S
10864 ( S. D. W. Va. J an. 29, 2014) . Cont r a Sevci k v. Sandoval , 911
F. Supp. 2d 996 ( D. Nev. 2012) ( appl yi ng r at i onal basi s t o r ej ect an
Equal Pr ot ect i on chal l enge t o Nevada' s same- sex mar r i age ban) . See
Uni t ed St at es v. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( 2013) .
8
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 same- sex mar r i ages, and some 20 st at es haven chosen t o
r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages i n f r ee and open debat e 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
Feder al Def ense of Mar r i age Act ( DOMA) , whi ch def i ned mar r i age as
a uni on bet ween one man and one woman onl y, vi ol at ed Equal
Pr ot ect i on and Due Pr ocess 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 same- sex mar r i age. I d. at 2693. Obser vi ng
" DOMA' s unusual devi at i on f r omt 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 scr i 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 s
Cour t , i s uncl ear ( cont r ar y t o t he concl usi ons i n many r ecent
f 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 r ef er ences an amor phous
but 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
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 scr ut i ny. Pl ai nt i f f s' ef f or t t o 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 andar d 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 , and
t he l ogi c of i t s opi ni on does not deci de, t he di st i nct quest i on
whet her t he St at es, i n t he exer ci se of t hei r ' hi st or i c and
essent 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 nue
t 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 on
t 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 ( 9
t h
Ci r . 2014) . Even l ess expl i ci t r egar di ng t he
appr 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 h
and 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 ( 4
t 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
( 10
t h
Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen v. Heber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S.
App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10
t h
Ci r . J une 25, 2014) .
10
Ct . at 2693. Al t hough bot h si des seek t he 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 at e l aw bl essi ng same- sex mar r 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 e
domest i c r el at i ons l aw appl i cabl e t o i t s r esi dent s and
ci 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 and
l egi t i mat e concer n i n t he mar i t al st at us of per sons
domi ci l ed wi t hi n i t s bor der s" ) . The 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 " [ p] r 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 bi d. " [ T] he st at es, at t he t i me of
t he adopt i on of t he Const i t ut i on, possessed f ul l power
over t he subj ect of mar r i age and di vor ce. . . [ and] t he
Const i t ut i on del egat ed no aut hor i t y t o t he Gover nment of
t 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) ( " The
whol e subj ect of t he domest i c r el at i ons of husband and
wi f e, par ent and chi l d, bel ongs t o t he l aws of t he St at es
and 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 nst r uct s:
The si gni f i cance of st at e r esponsi bi l i t i es f or t he
def i ni t i on and r egul at i on of mar r i age dat es t o t he
Nat i on' s begi nni ng; f or " when t he Const i t ut i on was
adopt ed t he common under st andi ng was t hat t he domest i c
r el at i ons of husband and wi f e and par ent and chi l d wer e
mat t er s r eser ved t o t he St at es. " Ohi o ex r el . Popovi ci
v. Agl er , 280 U. S. 379, 383- 384 ( 1930) . Mar r i age l aws
11
var y i n some r espect s f r omSt at e t o St at e. . . .
I d. And, f i nal l y, he emphasi zes why:
The r esponsi bi l i t y of t he St at es f or t he r egul at i on of
domest i c r el at i ons i s an i mpor t ant i ndi cat or of t he
subst ant i al soci et al i mpact t he St at e' s cl assi f i cat i ons
have i n t he dai l y l i ves and cust oms of i t s peopl e.
I d. at 2693. Wi ndsor l eaves unchanged " t he concer ns f or st at e
di ver si t y and sover ei gnt y. " See i d. at 2697 ( Rober t s, C. J . ,
di ssent i ng) .
But even apar t f r omWi ndsor , pl ai nt i f f s seek t o j ust i f y t he
appl i cat i on of hei ght ened scr ut i ny because, t hey ar gue, Loui si ana' s
l aws and Const i t ut i on di scr i mi nat e based on sexual or i ent at i on.
They f ai l , however , t o r ecogni ze t hat nei t her t he Supr eme Cour t nor
t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t has ever bef or e def i ned sexual or i ent at i on as a
pr ot ect ed cl ass, despi t e oppor t uni t i es t o do so. See, e. g. ,
Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( maj or i t y opi ni on) ; Romer , 517 U. S. 620;
J ohnson v. J ohnson, 385 F. 3d 503 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Baski n
v. Bogan, Nos. 14- 355, 14- 404 & 14- 406, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S
86114, at *34- *35 ( S. D. I nd. J une 25, 2014) ( 7
t h
Ci r cui t pr ecedent
mandat es appl i cat i on of r at i onal basi s scr ut i ny t o t he i ssue of
sexual or i ent at i on di scr i mi nat i on) . Admi t t edl y, ot her f eder al
cour t s t hr oughout t he count r y have spoken as i f t hey wer e deci di ng
t he i ssue by di scover i ng, at best , uncl ear case model s on t he mor e
demandi ng st andar d of r evi ew. Or , i n t he name of r at i onal basi s,
12
t hey have at t i mes appl i ed t he mor e exact i ng r evi ew st andar ds.
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 t o 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 on
t 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 of
power s. . . . I n a democr acy 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 ve
j 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 er s:
Fi r st , wher e as her e, t he l anguage of t he appl i cabl e
pr ovi si on pr ovi des gr eat l eeway and wher e t he under l yi ng
soci al pol i ci es ar e f el t t o be of vi t al i mpor t ance, t he
t empt at i on t o r ead per sonal pr ef er ence i nt o t he
Const i t ut i on i s under st andabl y gr eat . . . . But i t i s not t he
busi ness of t hi s Cour t t o pr onounce pol i cy. I t must
obser ve a f ast i di ous r egar d f or l i mi t at i ons on i t s own
power , and t hi s pr ecl udes t he Cour t gi vi ng ef f ect t o i t s
own 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 on
under t aken t oday r ef l ect s a basi c l ack of f ai t h and
conf i dence i n t he democr at i c pr ocess.
I d. at 464- 65.
13
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) , wher e t he 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 ( 10
t 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 t hi 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.
14298, at *92 ( 4
t h
Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ( Ni emeyer , J . , di ssent i ng) .
14
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 same- sex mar r i ages ent er ed i nt o i n ot her
st at es, or t o aut hor i ze same- sex 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 mor e 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 o
al l but t wo ot her f eder al cour t deci si ons. See Mer r i t t v. At t or ney
Gen. , No. 13- 215, 2013 WL 6044329 ( M. D. La. Nov. 14, 2013) ; Sevci k
v. Sandoval , 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 ( D. Nev. 2012) . But see Bost i c v.
14298 ( 4
t 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 ( 10
t h
Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen
v. Heber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10
t h
Ci r . J une
25, 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, 2014
U. 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. Mar ch
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 .
15
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 per haps unpr oved di mensi ons, does not r ender
Loui si ana' s deci si on i r r at i onal . Nor does t he 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 mandat e 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 per suaded 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 S
10864 ( 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 ng
i n par t ) ( " Absent a f undament al r i ght , t r adi t i onal r at i onal basi s
equal 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 on
t 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 ence
l 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 ve
or i nf or mt he Cour t ' s deci si on.
16
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 Cour t 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 r espect 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
same- sex 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 t wo 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 r eaf 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 ( 10
t 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 same- sex mar r i age suf f er f r om unconst i t ut i onal
ani mus. J udge Hol mes, i n a ver y car ef ul opi ni on, expl ai ned t hat a
f i ndi ng of ani mus gener al l y r equi r es some st r uct ur al aber r at i on i n
t he l aw at i ssue, l i ke t he i mposi t i on of wi de- r angi ng and novel
depr i vat i ons upon t he di sf avor ed gr oup or devi at i on f r om t he
hi 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 e
pr i vi l eges t hat 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 er ed Romer as an exampl e of t he f or mer , and
Wi ndsor of t he l at t er , but di st i ngui shed t he same- sex mar r i age ban
cases 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 was
nei 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 agr ees ent i r el y wi t h J udge Hol mes on t hi s poi nt and
concl udes t he ani mus doct r i ne i s i nappl i cabl e her e. To r each a
cont r ar y r esul t , i t woul d be necessar y t o " st r et ch t o accommodat e
changi 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 ( 4
t h
Ci r . J ul y
28, 2014) .
17
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 r el 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 same- sex mar r i age wi l l
under st andabl y var y among t he st at es, 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 at e 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 bot h 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
obser ved:
12
Thi s Cour t f i nds common cause wi t h J ust i ce Powel l ' s
caut i onar y i nj unct i on i n Fur man v. Geor gi a about j udi ci al act i on
t hat " r ef l ect s a basi c l ack of f ai t h and conf i dence i n t he
democr at i c pr ocess. " 408 U. S. at 464- 65.
18
Pr ocedur al due pr ocess pr omot es f ai r ness i n gover nment
deci si ons by r equi r i ng t he gover nment t o f ol l ow
appr opr i at e pr ocedur es when i t s agent s deci de t o depr i ve
any 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 due
pr 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 o
i mpl ement t hem, [ ] ser ves t o pr event gover nment power
f r ombei 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 ( 5
t 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 pr ocess, 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 n
t 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 pr ot 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 ( 11
t 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 t he 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 scar ce and open- ended. I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and
19
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 pr ocess 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 ( 5
t 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 t o 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 her e i s no f undament al r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age and t hat
r at i onal basi s r evi 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 mandat es t hat
pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi de a " car ef ul descr i 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
descr i 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 same- sex mar r 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
same- sex 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 same- sex 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 r
obl i gat i on t o car ef ul l y descr i be t he f undament al r i ght at i ssue
her 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 he
pr oposi t i on t hat mar r i age i s a f undament al r i ght guar ant eed t o
ever yone wi t hout l i mi t at i on; i ndeed, each case i nvol ved mar r i ages
bet ween one man and one woman. See Zabl ocki , 434 U. S. at 386 ( " By
af 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 do
not mean t o suggest t hat ever y st at e r egul at i on whi ch r el at es i n
any way t o t he i nci dent s of or pr er equi si t es f or mar r i age must be
subj ect ed t o st r i ct scr ut i ny. " ) . Def endant s apt l y not e t hat i t
coul d not be mai nt ai ned t hat t he st at es vi ol at e a gener al
f undament al r i ght t o mar r y when t hey r est r i ct mar r i ages bet ween
mi nor s, f i r st cousi ns, or mor e t han t wo peopl e, f or exampl e. I n a
case 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 t
pr ecedent f or a f undament al r i ght t o mar r y someone of t he same sex.
I n Baker v. Nel son, t he Supr eme Cour t summar i l y r ej ect ed " f or want
of a subst ant i al f eder al quest i on" t he cl ai mt hat t he Const i t ut i on
r equi r es a st at e t o aut hor i ze same- sex mar r i age. Def endant s poi nt
out t hat Baker was deci ded f i ve year s af t er Lovi ng. Unl i ke t he
def endant s i n many of t he ot her same- sex mar r i age cases bef or e
ot her f eder al cour t s, however , def endant s her e do not cont end t hat
Baker f or ecl oses t hi s Cour t ' s r evi ew or mandat es t he di sposi t i on of
t hi s case. See al so Mer r i t t v. At t or ney Gen. , No. 13- 215, 2013 WL
6044329, at *2 ( M. D. La. Nov. 14, 2013) ( ci t i ng Baker f or t he
pr 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 t
same- sex mar r i age) . The Cour t need not ent er t he di f f er i ng
cont ent i ons about t he vi abi l i t y of Baker v. Nel son.
21
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 same- sex 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 mor e di ver se, but any r i ght t o same- sex
mar r 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. Ther e 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 same- sex 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, even
post - 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 s
vi ewed as a cont our s- of - t he- r i ght quest i on, hol di ng t hat t he
f undament al r i ght t o mar r y encompasses same- sex mar r i age woul d be
a dr amat i c st ep t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has not yet i ndi cat ed a
wi 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 ( 4
t h
Ci r . J ul y
28, 2014) ( Ni emeyer , J . , di ssent i ng) ( " At bot t om, t he f undament al
r i ght t o mar r i age does not i ncl ude a r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age. " ) ;
Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S
13733, *147- *148 ( 10
t 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 ) ( " Removi ng gender compl ement ar i t y f r om
t 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 he
car ef ul anal ysi s pr escr i bed by t he Supr eme Cour t when i t comes t o
subst 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 r
f 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, but
t 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 have
f avor ed same- sex 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 S
11935 ( 10
t h
Ci r . 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 ,
13- 1861, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68771 ( M. D. Pa. May 20, 2014) .
22
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 cr edi 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 st at 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 t hei 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 same- sex 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 r el 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
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 same- sex r el 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
mor al 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 eedomof speech. " U. S. Const . amend. I .
" As a gener al mat t er , t he Fi r st Amendment means t hat gover nment 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 t hat t he gover nment
cannot compel a per son t o speak or t o par r ot a f avor ed vi ewpoi nt .
Wool ey v. Maynar d, 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 eedomof 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 omspeaki 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
opi ni on or f or ce ci t i zens t o conf ess by wor d or act t hei r f ai t h
t her ei n. " ) . I n t he cont ext of compel l ed speech, cour t s must
di scer n whet her a l aw " r egul at es conduct , not speech" ; onl y
i nf r i ngement s of speech, and not conduct , war r ant Fi r st Amendment
pr ot ect i on. Rumsf el d v. For um f or Academi c & I nst . Ri ght s, 547
U. S. 47, 60 ( 2006) ( di st i ngui shi ng r egul at i on of what someone " must
do" f r om" what t hey may or may not say" ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) .
Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 r equi r es same- sex coupl es who ar e l awf ul l y
mar r i ed i n ot her st at es t o never t hel ess descr i be t hat t hey ar e of
si ngl e st at us on t hei r Loui si ana st at e i ncome t ax r et ur ns.
Pl ai nt i f f s say t hat compel s speech. Def endant s answer t hat t he
t ar get ed bul l et i n mer el y pr escr i bes conduct . They add t hat t he
r equi r ed conduct i s necessar y t o an essent i al gover nment f unct i on,
col l ect i ng st at e t axes. They st r ess hel pf ul l y t hat t he Fi f t h
Ci r cui t r ecent l y agr eed wi t h t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t t hat t he r equi r ed
di scl osur e of i nf or mat i on on a t ax f or m i s si mpl y not compel l ed
speech under t he Fi r st Amendment . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ar nol d, 740
F. 3d 1032, 1035 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 2014) ( " ' Ther e i s no r i ght t o r ef r ai n f r om
speaki ng when essent i al oper at i ons of gover nment r equi r e i t f or t he
pr eser vat i on of an or der l y soci et y. . . . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.
Si ndel , 53 F. 3d 874, 878 ( 8
t h
Ci r . 1995) ) .
The Cour t i s sat i sf i ed t hat Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 does not
cont r avene t he Fi r st Amendment ; t hat t he di scl osur e r equi r ement
r egul at es conduct , not speech. See Rumsf el d, 547 U. S. at 60;
Ar nol d, 740 F. 3d at 1034- 35. Despi t e pl ai nt i f f s' cont ent i ons t o
25
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 mt 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 si 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' ar gument 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 t o 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 onat e i ssue on same- sex mar r i age. The f eder al cour t
deci si ons t hus f ar exempl i f y a pageant of empat hy; 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 o
t ake i nt o account t hat t he " mar r i age" t hat has l ong been
r ecogni zed by t he Supr eme Cour t as a f undament al r i ght i s
26
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 onounced
by t he maj or i t y' s acknowl edgment t hat same- sex mar r i age
i s a new not i on t hat has not been r ecogni zed f or " most of
our count r y' s hi st or y. " Mor eover , t he maj or i t y f ai l s t o
expl ai n how t hi s new not i on became i ncor por at ed 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 c
mani pul at i on.
Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at
*71- *72 ( 4
t h
Ci 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 at ed 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 t ake up
t he i ssue of same- sex 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 dept h 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 s
18
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 ands
apar t f r omt he deci si ons descr i pt i vel y spawned by Wi ndsor and t he
cont 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 ney
Gen. , 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 y
spoken. Ki t chen v. Her ber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S
11935 ( 10
t h
Ci r . J une 25, 2014) . As has t he Four t h Ci r cui t . Bost i c
v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S
14298 ( 4
t h
Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) .
27
t he hopef ul chor us t hat t he t i de i s t ur ni ng seems ar dent and i s an
ar guabl y popul ar , i ndeed, poi gnant , out come ( whet her or not
cr edi 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 mmar 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 par t 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 ot her / br ot her ? Fat her and chi l d? May mi nor s mar r y? Must
mar r 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 one
of 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
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 er ent 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 ar ena of democr at i c debat e. 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 ( 10
t 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 gr eat l eeway and wher e t he under l yi ng
soci al pol i ci es ar e f el t t o be of vi t al i mpor t ance, t he
t empt at i on t o r ead per sonal pr ef er ence i nt o t he
Const i t ut i on i s under st andabl y gr eat . . . . But i t i s not t he
busi ness of t hi s Cour t t o pr onounce pol i cy. I t must
obser ve a f ast i di ous r egar d f or l i mi t at i ons on i t s own
power , and t hi s pr ecl udes t he Cour t ' s gi vi ng ef f ect t o
i 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 ong
par 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 S
14298, at *67. But see i d. at *86- *87 ( Ni emeyer , J . ,
di ssent i ng) ( " To now def i ne t he pr evi ousl y r ecogni zed f undament al
r i ght t o ' mar r i age' as a concept t hat i ncl udes t he new not i on of
' same- sex mar r i age' amount s t o a di ct i onar y j ur i spr udence, whi ch
def i nes t er ms as conveni ent t o at t ai n an end. " ) .
29
[ O] n t hi s i ssue we shoul d def er . To be sur e, t he
const 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- gender
coupl 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 o
t 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 nt er est s of t he
St 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 ongs
t o t he el ect or at e and t hei r r epr esent at i ves. . . . We shoul d
r esi st t he t empt at i on t o become phi l osopher - ki ngs,
i mposi ng our vi ews under t he gui se of const i t ut i onal
i 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 same- sex mar r 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 eme
Cour 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 o
Def 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 t hat a Mi chi gan const i t ut i onal amendment pr event i ng
t he use of r ace- based pr ef er ences as par t of t he admi ssi ons pr ocess
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 ause
of t he Four t eent h Amendment . J ust i ce Kennedy, t he aut hor of
Wi ndsor , wr i t i ng f or t he Cour t , emphasi zed t hat t he quest i on bef or e
t he Cour t was " not t he per mi ssi bi l i t y of r ace- consci ous admi ssi ons
pol 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 al
pr ef er ences i n gover nment al deci si ons. " I d. at 1630. I n ot her
wor ds, t he quest i on was whet her " t he cour t s [ may or ] may not
di sempower t he vot er s f r omchoosi ng whi ch pat h t o f ol l ow. " I d. at
1635. The Supr eme Cour t hel d not . I t r easoned: " Thi s case i s not
about how t he debat e about r aci al pr ef er ences shoul d be r esol 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 or
t 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 cy
det er mi nat i on t o t he vot er s. " I d. at 1638. Thi s case shar es
st 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 case
i nvol ves " [ d] el i ber at i ve debat e on sensi t i ve i ssues [ t hat ] al l t oo
of t en may shade i nt o r ancor . " I d. And so j ust l i ke t he Supr eme
Cour t ver y r ecent l y hel d, t hi s Cour t agr ees " t hat does not j ust i f y
r 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
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 mar r 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 her e i s no f undament al r i ght t o same- sex
mar r i age and t her e ar e r at i onal r easons f or not
r ecogni zi ng i t , j ust as t her e ar e r at i onal r easons f or
r 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 ect
i 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 he
St at es' pol i cy choi ces on t hi s i ssue. I f gi ven t he
choi ce, some St at es wi l l sur el y r ecogni ze same- sex
mar r i age and some wi l l sur el y not . But t hat i s, t o be
sur e, t he beaut y of f eder al i sm.
2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *109. Feder al i smi 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 ar e ei t her t oo
di vi si ve or t oo pr of ound f or publ i c debat e. " I d.
31
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 same- sex 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 Pr ot ect i on and Due Pr ocess
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 same- sex 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 he
communi t y of soci al sci ent i st s, cl er gy, pol i t i ci ans, and t hi nker s
about what i s mar r i age conf i r ms and cl ear l y sends t he message t hat
t he st at e has a l egi t i mat e i nt er est , a r at i onal basi s, i n
addr essi ng t he meani ng of mar r i age.
32

LA Marriage Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LA Marriage Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

EASTERN DI STRI CT OF LOUI SI ANA

You might also like