Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Document: 00512814842
Page: 1
No. 14-31037
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 2
Stuart Plunkett
Andrew Bernick
Sara Bartel
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market St.
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268-7522
Email: sbartel@mofo.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Family Law Professors
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 3
No. 14-31037
Robicheaux, et al. v. Caldwell, et al.
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons
and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in
the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Judges of
this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS:
Individual Plaintiffs/Appellants: Garth
Beauregard; Courtney Blanchard; Nadine
Blanchard; Andrew S. Bond; R. Carey
Bond; Jacqueline M. Brettner; M. Lauren
Brettner; Henry Lambert; Derek Penton;
Sergio March Prieto; Jonathan P.
Robicheaux; Nicholas J. Van Sickels; L.
Havard Scott, III; and Robert Welles.
Entity Plaintiff/Appellant: Forum For Equality
Louisiana, Inc. is a Louisiana nonprofit
corporation with its primary office in New
Orleans, Louisiana. The Forum is a social
welfare organization within the meaning of
Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue
Code. The Forum has no parent
corporation(s). As a 501(c)(4)
organization, The Forum does not have
shareholders or issue stock and, thus, is not
a nongovernmental corporate entity in
which a publicly held corporation owns
10% or more of its stock.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:
Tim Barfield, in his official capacity as the
Louisiana Secretary of Revenue;
James D. Caldwell, in his official capacity as
the Louisiana Attorney General, also
known as Buddy Caldwell (Defendant
Caldwell was dismissed below and the
propriety of his dismissal is not raised on
appeal);
Devin George, in his official capacity as the
State Registrar and Center Director at
Louisiana Department of Health and
Hospitals;
Kathy Kliebert, in her official capacity as the
Louisiana Secretary of Health and
Hospitals.
Page: 4
AMICI CURIAE:
Ben E. Clayton
BEN E. CLAYTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
Arthur L. Stewart
ARTHUR L. STEWART, ATTORNEY AT
LAW, LLC
Counsel lacks information about the structures of the entity amici, including parent
entities, related entities, or shareholders.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 5
Amici Curiae professors and experts of family law (see Appendix A) are
individuals signing in their individual capacity; they have no parent corporation or
any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock.
s/ Sara Bartel
Sara Bartel
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 268-6000
Fax: (415) 268-7522
Email: sbartel@mofo.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Family Law Scholars
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................vi
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................................................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 5
I.
II.
III.
B.
B.
C.
D.
E.
B.
iv
Case: 14-31037
C.
Document: 00512814842
Page: 7
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................29
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 8
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett,
531 U.S. 356 (2001) ......................................................................................20, 21
Bostic v. Schaefer,
760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) , cert. denied, Schaefer v. Bostic, 83
U.S.L.W. 3189 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014) .................................................................... 19
Califano v. Goldfarb,
430 U.S. 199 (1977) ............................................................................................ 15
De Leon v. Perry,
975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014) .............................................................. 23
DeBoer v. Snyder,
973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014) ............................................................. 19
Eisenstadt v. Baird,
405 U.S. 438 (1972) .............................................................................................. 9
Frontiero v. Richardson,
411 U.S. 677 (1973) ............................................................................................ 15
Geiger v. Kitzhaber,
994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014) ................................................................... 23
Gomez v. Perez,
409 U.S. 535 (1973) (per curiam) ....................................................................... 27
Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health,
798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) ............................................................................. 25
Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479 (1965) .......................................................................................... 6, 9
Hollingsworth v. Perry,
133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) ..................................................................................18, 19
vi
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
In re Marriage Cases,
183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) .................................................................................... 25
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.,
511 U.S. 127 (1994) ............................................................................................ 17
Kirchberg v. Feenstra,
450 U.S. 455 (1981) ............................................................................................ 15
Kitchen v. Herbert,
755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014), cert. denied,
Herbert v. Kitchen, 83 USLW 3189 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014) .......................19, 20, 23
Latta v. Otter,
No. 1:13-cv-00482, 2014 WL 1909999 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014), affd
Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420, 2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014) ...24, 25
Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U.S. 558 (2003) .......................................................................................... 6, 8
Levy v. Louisiana,
391 U.S. 68 (1968) .............................................................................................. 27
Lovell v. Lovell,
378 So. 2d 418 (La. 1979) .................................................................................. 13
Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923) ............................................................................................ 17
Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan,
458 U.S. 718 (1982) ............................................................................................ 17
Nev. Dept of Human Res. v. Hibbs,
538 U.S. 721 (2003) ............................................................................................ 15
vii
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Orr v. Orr,
440 U.S. 268 (1979) ......................................................................................13, 15
Pace v. State ex rel La. State Emps. Ret. Sys.,
648 So. 2d 1302 (La. 1995) ................................................................................ 28
Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................ 18
Pierce v. Socy of Sisters,
268 U.S. 510 (1925) ............................................................................................ 17
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,
490 U.S. 228 (1989) ............................................................................................ 16
Robicheaux v. Caldwell,
2 F. Supp 3d 910 (E.D. La. 2014) ......................................................................... 3
Romer v. Evans,
517 U.S. 620 (1996) ........................................................................................ 5, 10
Sharp v. Sharp,
470 So. 2d 371 (La. Ct. App. 1985).................................................................... 14
Smith v. Cole,
553 So. 2d 847 (La. 1989) ............................................................................10, 26
Stanley v. Illinois,
405 U.S. 645 (1972) ............................................................................................ 16
Stanton v. Stanton,
421 U.S. 7 (1975) ................................................................................................ 16
State ex rel Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Howard,
898 So. 2d 443 (La. Ct. App. 2004)..............................................................10, 11
viii
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Succession of Brown,
388 So. 2d 1151 (La. 1980) ................................................................................ 26
Troxel v. Granville,
530 U.S. 57 (2000) .............................................................................................. 17
Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78 (1987) ................................................................................................ 9
United States v. Virginia,
518 U.S. 515 (1996) ............................................................................................ 15
United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ..............................................................................5, 19, 25
Varnum v. Brien,
763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) ............................................................................. 21
Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,
406 U.S. 164 (1972) ............................................................................................ 27
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld,
420 U.S. 636 (1975) ............................................................................................ 15
Zablocki v. Redhail,
434 U.S. 374 (1978) ............................................................................................ 21
STATUTES, CONSTITUTIONS & RULES
26 U.S.C.A. 6013 .................................................................................................... 8
Fed. R. App. Proc. 29(a) ............................................................................................ 1
29(c)(5)........................................................................................ 1
La. Const. art. 1, 3 ................................................................................................. 28
art. 12, 15 .............................................................................................. 1
ix
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 12
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
La. Ch. Code art. 1198 ............................................................................................. 11
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 13
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
art. 195 .................................................................................... 10
art. 197 .................................................................................... 11
art. 198 .................................................................................... 11
art. 199 .................................................................................... 11
art. 227 .................................................................................... 13
art. 240 .................................................................................... 13
art. 889 ...................................................................................... 8
art. 890 ................................................................................ 8, 13
art. 894 ................................................................................ 8, 13
art. 2315 .................................................................................... 8
art. 2315.1 ................................................................................. 8
La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.2 ................................................................................. 8
art. 2315.5 ................................................................................. 8
art. 2315.6 ................................................................................. 8
art. 2338 .................................................................................... 8
art. 2346 .................................................................................. 12
art. 3520 .................................................................................... 1
La. Evid. Code Ann. art. 504 ..................................................................................... 8
art. 505 ..................................................................................... 8
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:102 ...................................................................................... 13
9:2801 (A)(4)(c).................................................................... 13
9:307 ....................................................................................... 7
40:1299.53 (A)(4) ................................................................... 8
xi
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 14
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Andrea Carroll & Robert D. Moreno, Matrimonial Regimes,
16 La. Civ. L. Treatise (3d ed. 2014).................................................................. 12
Carlos A. Ball, Social Science Studies and the Children of Lesbians and Gay
Men: The Rational Basis Perspective, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 691
(2013) ............................................................................................................17, 18
Gary J. Gates, Same-Sex and Different-Sex Couples in the American
Community Survey: 2005-2011 (Williams Institute, 2013), available at
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/ACS-2013.pdf. ........ 24
Gary J. Gates and Abigail M. Cooke, Louisiana Census Snapshot: 2010
(Williams Institute, 2010) , available at
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/Census2010Snap
shot_Louisiana_v2.pdf, last visited Oct. 22, 2014 ............................................. 24
Kathryn Venturatos Lorio, Children Born Out of Wedlock, Successions and
Donations 3:1, 10 La. Civ. L. Treatise (2d ed. 2013) ..................................... 27
Melissa Murray, Marriage As Punishment, 112 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2012) ............. 26
Michael L. Eisenberg, M.D. et al., Predictors of not pursuing infertility
treatment after an infertility diagnosis: examination of a prospective U.S.
cohort, 94 Fertility & Sterility No. 6 (2010) ........................................................ 7
P. Keith Daigle, All in the Family: Equal Protection and the Illegitimate
Child in Louisiana Succession Law, 38 La. L. Rev. 189 (1977) ........................ 27
Surrogacy: A Brief U.S. History, 3 Family and Society, Encyclopedia of
Contemporary American Social Issues (Michael Shally-Jensen ed. 2011) ........ 7
xii
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 15
See Joint Consent by All Parties to the Filing of Briefs Amicus Curiae, Case No. 1431037 (Oct. 7, 2014) ECF No. 00512796204.
3
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(c)(5), no counsel for any party
authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or counsel for any party made a monetary
contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
5
While Amici agree with Appellants that Louisianas marriage ban should be subject to
heightened scrutiny, the ban is unconstitutional under any standard of review.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 16
responsible for their childrens well-being. Amici agree that marriage can benefit
children by providing support and stability to their families. Louisianas marriage
ban, however, does not further child well-being or responsible parenting.
Appellees and their amicis arguments to the contrary lack any basis in history,
law, or logic.
In Louisiana and elsewhere, couples marry for many reasons, including a
desire for public acknowledgment of their mutual commitment to share their lives
with each other through a legally binding union. Appellees and their amici ignore
the multiple purposes of marriage, and suggest that the ability to procreate without
assistance is the raison dtre of marriage. (See Brief of Amici Curiae Robert P.
George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson in Support of Defendants (George
Br.), 9, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, No. 13-5090-MLCF-ALC (E.D. La. May 12,
2014) ECF No. 96); Brief of Amici Curiae J. Randall Trahan and Katherine Shaw
Spaht on Behalf of Defendants (Trahan Br.), 17, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, No. 135090-MLCF-ALC (E.D. La. May 12, 2014) ECF No. 97.) But Louisiana does not
and never has limited marriage to couples who can or want to have children through
biological procreation. Indeed, it would be constitutionally impermissible to do so.
Second, Appellees amici argue that marriage can be limited to couples who
can provide the ideal environment for raising children, (Brief of Amici Curiae
Social Science Professors in Support of Defendants (Soc. Br.), 21, Robicheaux v.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 17
Caldwell, No. 13-5090-MLCF-ALC (E.D. La. May 12, 2014) ECF No. 91), which
they claim are environments with a stable biological mother and father (Soc. Br.
3; see also Brief of Amici Curiae Professors Alan J. Hawkins and Jason S. Carroll
in Support of Defendants (Hawkins Br.), 21, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, No. 135090-MLCF-ALC (E.D. La. May 12, 2014) ECF No. 94) (describing the optimal
mother-father, biological parenting model)). See also Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.
Supp 3d 910, 919 (E.D. La. 2014) (summarizing defendants argument that
Louisianas same-sex marriage ban serve[s] a central state interest of linking
children to an intact family formed by their biological parents). But the ideal
parenting arguments touted by these and other amici (see, e.g., George Br. 4;
Trahan Br. 13), are unsupported by social science, which overwhelmingly
demonstrates that it is the quality and nature of the parental relationshipnot a
parents gender or biological relationship to the childthat is critical to positive
child adjustment and outcomes.7 Appellees amicis assertions also conflict with
Louisiana law, which does not view biology as the sole criterion for filiation and
rejects the notion that a parents gender is legally relevant to determinations of
childrens best interests. Further, a desire to impose gender complementarity on
parents, (Soc. Br. 5), offends constitutional principles by basing law on conformity
7
See Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Psychological Association et al. in Support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees, DeLeon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2014) ECF No.
00512769207.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 18
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 19
law. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).8 Accordingly, under the
federal Constitution, Appellees claims provide no rational basis for denying samesex couples the right to marry.
ARGUMENT
I.
See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996) (laws based solely on animus towards
certain classes violate equal protection clause). Animus as used in Romer is a term of art and
does not mean subjective dislike or hostility, but simply an intention to exclude a particular
group from legal protections without a rational reason for doing so.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 20
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 21
Data from 2002 show that approximately seven million women and four million men
suffer from infertility. Michael L. Eisenberg, M.D. et al., Predictors of not pursuing infertility
treatment after an infertility diagnosis: examination of a prospective U.S. cohort, 94 Fertility &
Sterility No. 6, 2369 (2010). In 1999, approximately two to three million couples were infertile.
Surrogacy: A Brief U.S. History, 3 Family and Society, Encyclopedia of Contemporary
American Social Issues, 1182 (Michael Shally-Jensen ed., 2011).
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 22
10
See, e.g., La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 40:1299.53(A)(4) (spousal right to consent to medical
care); La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2315, 2315.1, 2315.2, 2315.5, 2315.6 (spousal rights to claim
losses in damages actions); La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.2 (action for wrongful death); La. Civ.
Code Ann. art. 2338 (community property); La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 889 (spousal right to inherit
community property); La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 890, 894 (spousal right to inherit); La. Civ. Code
Ann. art. 111 (spousal right to seek support); 26 U.S.C.A.6013 (spousal right to file joint
federal income taxes); La. Code Evid. Ann. arts. 504, 505 (spousal testimonial privileges).
Case: 14-31037
B.
Document: 00512814842
Page: 23
Case: 14-31037
II.
Document: 00512814842
Page: 24
Under Louisiana law, there are many ways to establish a legal parent-child
relationship. A biological or genetic connection to a child is one such means, but
not always a necessary or sufficient one. For example, Louisiana, like all other
states, presumes that a husband is a childs legal parent when the child is born to his
wife during or subsequent to their marriage. La. Civ. Code arts. 185, 195. Proof that
the husband is not the biological father does not necessarily rebut the presumption.
Smith v. Cole, 553 So. 2d 847 (La. 1989) (child is still the legitimate child of the
mothers husband even if another mans biological paternity is proven); State ex rel
11
This effort to justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage by repeating the
States preference for married different-sex parents merely circles back to the challenged
classification without justifying it. Romer, 517 U.S. at 633 (discriminatory classifications must
serve some independent and legitimate legislative end).
10
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 25
Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Howard, 898 So. 2d 443, 444 (La. Ct. App. 2004) (same);
La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 197, 198.12 Louisiana permits dual paternity, where both a
husband who is not a biological father and the biological father are recognized as
legal parents, placing the best interests of children above biology. To argue that a
biological connection is preferable in a marriage undermines established Louisiana
law.
Louisiana law also recognizes that a husband is a parent and cannot deny his
parentage if the child was conceived with his consent through donor insemination.
La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 188. In addition, Louisiana, like every other state, allows
adults to adopt children who are not their biological offspring. La. Ch. Code art.
1198. Adoptive parents are treated as equal in all respects to all other legal parents.
La. Civ. Code art. 199.
In sum, the lack of a requirement of a biological tie as a condition for
establishing filiation, and Louisianas support for non-biological filiation in some
instances, render implausible any contention that the marriage ban is based on a
preference for biological parenting.
12
The mothers husband is completely precluded from seeking to disavow his paternity
one year after the childs birth or after he knew or should have known about the childs birth, or
if the spouses have lived apart for more than three hundred days before the birth, one year after
being notified in writing that his paternity has been asserted by an interested party. La. Civ. Code
Ann. art. 189.
11
Case: 14-31037
B.
Document: 00512814842
Page: 26
Louisiana law and policy contradict Appellees and their amicis claims that
gender-differentiat[ion] or complementarity in marriage and parenting is an
important state objective. (See, e.g., Soc. Br. 5; Hawkins Br. 14-18.) Their claim
that gender remains a definitional pillar of the social institution of marriage is
outdated. (Hawkins Br. 14.) Instead, as in every other state, marriage under
Louisiana law is a union free of state-mandated, sex- or gender-based distinctions in
spousal roles or the incidents of marriage. Louisianas child custody law also treats
a parents sex or gender as legally irrelevant.
Louisiana has eliminated the sex-specific roles that were once central to
marriage. Within Louisianas longstanding community property system, each
spouse now has the right to management and control over his or her interests in the
community property. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2346 (Each spouse acting alone may
manage, control, or dispose of community property unless otherwise provided by
law.); see also Andrea Carroll & Robert D. Moreno, Matrimonial Regimes 5:3,
16 La. Civ. L. Treatise, (3d ed. 2014) (The powers of management formerly
granted to the husband alone are now also granted to the wife. Except as otherwise
provided, [e]ach spouse acting alone may manage, control, or dispose of
community property unless otherwise provided by law. The spouses are equal in
this regard, each sharing identical powers of management.) (internal citation
12
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 27
removed). Louisiana has also extended equal rights to spouses to hold and control
their separate property, enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued. See, e.g., La.
Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:102 (Married women may institute or defend suits, or
otherwise appear in judicial proceedings, and stand in judgment, without the
authority of their husbands or of the judge.).
Louisiana has eliminated gender-based distinctions upon divorce or the death
of a spouse. The causes for divorce are the same for each spouse. See La. Civ. Code
Ann. arts. 102, 103. At divorce, Louisiana law requires the court to divide the
community property without regard to gender. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:2801
(A)(4)(c). Louisiana has also rejected the gender-based rule that spousal support
was only paid by the husband to the wifenow either spouse may qualify or be
held liable for support. See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 111; Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268
(1979) (holding that such rules constitute unconstitutional sex-discrimination);
Lovell v. Lovell, 378 So. 2d 418, 419-20 (La. 1979) (applying Orr v. Orr to
Louisiana law). Similarly, upon death, each spouse has an equal right to the
deceased spouses property. La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 890, 894.
Parents are both equally obligated, regardless of their gender, to provide care
and support for their children. See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 227 (Fathers and
mothers, by the very act of marrying, contract together the obligation of supporting,
maintaining, and educating their children.); La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 240 (same for
13
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 28
unmarried parents); see also La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 99 (Spouses mutually assume
the moral and material direction of the family, exercise parental authority, and
assume the moral and material obligations resulting therefrom.). Child custody
determinations are based on the best interests of the child, without regard to the
gender of the parents. See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 131; La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 134
(setting forth factors for court to consider in determining best interests); Sharp v.
Sharp, 470 So. 2d 371, 374 (La. Ct. App. 1985) (finding that allowing the mother to
remain the custodial parent based solely on gender was clear error in violation of
the child custody statute).
As these examples demonstrate, Louisiana law does not inscribe genderdifferentiated roles in marriage or parenting. (Soc. Br. 5.) In fact, Louisiana has
sought to eliminate family law rules based on sex or gender stereotypes.
C.
Beyond its inconsistency with Louisiana law, any effort to enforce genderdifferentiated roles in marriage or parenting would be unconstitutional. In fact,
Appellees amici attempt to justify the marriage ban on this basis: the
complementarity of an intact family, with a mother and a father serving unique
relational roles, is optimal for a childs healthy development. (Soc. Br. 5 (citations
omitted); see also Hawkins Br. 21 (describing the optimal mother-father,
biological parenting model).) But this is precisely the type of overbroad
14
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 29
15
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 30
Soc. Br. 5 (emphasizing distinct roles of fathers and mothers in socialization of the
child) (citation omitted); id. (noting the differences between maternal and
paternal behavior as related to parents biological gender or sex roles)
(quotations and citations omitted).) These alleged interests are suspect under
constitutional principles.
Almost forty years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that
provided different child support obligations for girls than for boys based on
presumptions about their respective roles and destinies. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S.
7, 14-15 (1975) (A child, male or female, is still a child. No longer is the female
destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the
marketplace and the world of ideas.); see also Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645,
653, 661 (1972) (holding unconstitutional a state law that conclusively presumed
that all unmarried fathers were unqualified to raise their children); cf. Price
Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 251 (1989) (As for the legal relevance of
sex stereotyping, we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate
employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated
with their group, for [i]n forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals
because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate
treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.) (quoting
Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978));
16
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 31
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (rejecting stereotypes about
how female and male jurors differ); Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718,
729 (1982) (rejecting stereotype that only women should be nurses).
In addition, there are powerful traditionsbolstered by constitutional
decisionsthat protect parental autonomy, including the rights of parents to control
the care and raising of their children, and socialize them as they see fit. See
Pierce v. Socy of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 53435 (1925) (parents have a right to
direct the upbringing and education of [their] children); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262
U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (the right to marry, establish a home and bring up children
is a protected liberty); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 72-73 (2000) ([T]he Due
Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of
parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a
better decision could be made.).
D.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 32
(2013). These peer-reviewed studies have examined a wide array of factors related
to childrens well-being, including their attachment to parents, emotional
adjustment, school performance, peer relations, cognitive functioning, and selfesteem. No study has found any differences based on the sexual orientation of
childrens parents. Id. at 716-17. Instead, the key factors correlated with positive
outcomes for children are the quality of the parent-child relationship and the
relationship and resources of the parents. Id. at 733 n.286. In particular, having two
involved parents rather than only onean arrangement that would be supported by
allowing parents to marryis correlated with better outcomes for children,
regardless of the sexual orientation or genders of the parents. Id.; see also Amicus
Curiae Brief of the American Sociological Association in Support of PlaintiffsAppellees, DeLeon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2014) ECF No.
00512769671.
In light of this social science consensus, courts have increasingly rejected the
optimal parenting argument. See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d
921, 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010), reinstated in Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652
(2013) (The gender of a childs parent is not a factor in a childs adjustment. The
sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can
be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children
raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The
18
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 33
research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of
developmental psychology.). All of the seventeen or more federal district court
rulings that have struck down state marriage bans since the Supreme Courts 2013
decisions in Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, and Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. 2652, have
echoed the Perry courts conclusions. See, e.g., DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d
757, 770 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (noting that over 150 sociological and psychological
studies have repeatedly confirmed that there is no scientific basis to differentiate
between children raised in same-sex versus heterosexual households). The Tenth
and Fourth Circuits have recently affirmed four of these district court rulings and
their conclusions concerning the social science findings. See, e.g., Kitchen v.
Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1225 (10th Cir. 2014) (We cannot embrace the contention
that children raised by opposite-sex parents fare better than children raised by samesex parents . . . .), cert. denied, Herbert v. Kitchen, 83 USLW 3189 (U.S. Oct. 6,
2014) (No. 14-124); Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 383 (4th Cir. 2014) ([T]he
same factorsincluding family stability, economic resources, and the quality of
parent-child relationshipsare linked to childrens positive development, whether
they are raised by heterosexual, lesbian, or gay parents.) (quoting the Amicus Br.
of the American Psychological Association, et al.), cert. denied, Schaefer v. Bostic,
83 U.S.L.W. 3189 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014) (No. 14-225).
19
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 34
Even if, arguendo, there were differences in how children fare between those
raised by married heterosexual couples and those raised by cohabiting same-sex
couples, it is not permissible to rely on any such differences as justification for
singling out same-sex couples and excluding them from the right to marry. No other
couples are denied the right to marry based on a belief that they will not provide an
optimal setting for the raising of children. To obtain a marriage license under
Louisiana law, couples do not have to prove their ability to have children, raise
them in any particular family structure, or achieve specific state-endorsed outcomes
for their children. See La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 87-93; Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1224-25
(The state does not restrict the right to marry or its recognition of marriage based
on compliance with any set of parenting roles, or even parenting quality.). Parental
resources are associated with better outcomes for children, but no one would
suggest that lower- or middle-income people should be barred from marrying. The
complete bar on marriage for all same-sex couples [makes] no sense in light of
how [Louisiana] treat[s] other groups similarly situated in relevant respects. Bd. of
20
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 35
Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 366 n.4 (2001) (citing City of
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 447-50 (1985)).
The Supreme Court has also recognized that whether members of a couple
would be good parents, or whether they could even provide support for children, are
not permissible bases upon which to deny them the right to marry. In Zablocki v.
Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), Wisconsin sought to deny marriage licenses to
parents the state considered irresponsible because they had failed to pay child
support, but the Court held that conditioning marriage on a persons parenting
behavior was an unconstitutional infringement of the right to marry. Id. at 386, 38889. In this vein, courts have rejected the optimal child-rearing theory in part
because marriage is not and cannot be restricted to individuals who would be
good parents. See, e.g., Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 900 (Iowa 2009)
(noting that Iowa did not exclude from marriage other groups of parentssuch as
child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and
violent felonsthat are undeniably less than optimal parents).
In sum, a desire to promote optimal parenting cannot justify banning samesex couples from marriage.
III.
and any of the purported interests identified by Appellees and their amici. It is
21
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 36
22
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 37
23
Case: 14-31037
B.
Document: 00512814842
Page: 38
Although there is not even a rational reason to think that the marriage ban
will have any positive effect on the children of different-sex couples, it is certain to
harm the children of same-sex couples by denying their families access to hundreds
of critical state and federal benefits that are conducive to providing stable and
secure environments for raising children.13 Appellees make the callous suggestion
that because the overwhelming majority of children are born to different-sex
couples, (Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, 16-17, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, No. 13-5090-MLCF-ALC (E.D. La.
May 20, 2014) ECF No. 102), the State may exclude other childrens families from
marriage and thereby deny them the multiple benefits of being recognized as the
legal children of both their parents. As the District Court striking down Idahos
marriage ban properly determined, [i]n this most glaring regard, [the marriage
bans] fail to advance the States interest because they withhold legal, financial, and
social benefits from the very group they purportedly protectchildren. Latta v.
13
As of 2011, about one in five same-sex couples were raising children under age 18.
Gary J. Gates, Same-Sex and Different-Sex Couples in the American Community Survey: 20052011 (Williams Institute, 2013) at 1, available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/ACS-2013.pdf. In 2010, there were 8,076 same-sex couples in Louisiana, with
over 1,600 of them raising children. Gary J. Gates and Abigail M. Cooke, Louisiana Census
Snapshot: 2010 (Williams Institute, 2010) at 3, available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/
wp-content/uploads/Census2010Snapshot_Louisiana_v2.pdf, last visited Oct. 22, 2014.
24
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 39
Otter, No. 1:13-cv-00482, 2014 WL 1909999, at *24 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014),
affd Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420, 2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014).
The marriage ban also amounts to an official statement that the family
relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to
that of married couples. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 445, 452 (Cal. 2008).
This stigma leads children to understand that the State considers their gay and
lesbian parents to be unworthy of participating in the institution of marriage and
devalues their families compared to families that are headed by married
heterosexuals. Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 963 (Mass.
2003).
Excluding same-sex couples from marriage and all of its attendant legal
protections because they allegedly do not provide a certain kind of parenting, when
different sex couples are not required to have children at allmuch less biological
childrenimposes significant burdens on same-sex couples and their children. A
desire to mark the relationships and parenting abilities of same-sex couples as less
worthy of respect is an impermissible interest, under any standard of constitutional
review. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2695-96.
In these ways, the marriage ban does significant tangible and intangible harm
to the children of same-sex couples.
25
Case: 14-31037
C.
Document: 00512814842
Page: 40
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 41
27
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 42
28
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 43
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Amici ask that this Court reverse the district
courts decision.
Respectfully submitted,
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
29
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 44
APPENDIX A14
Jamie R. Abrams
Assistant Professor of Law
Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
University of Louisville
Penelope Bryan
Dean and Professor of Law
Whittier Law School
Mary Patricia Byrn
Associate Dean and Professor of Law
William Mitchell College of Law
Kerry Abrams
Albert Clark Tate, Jr. Professor of
Law
University of Virginia School of Law
Naomi Cahn
Harold H. Greene Professor of Law
GWU Law School
Marianne Blair
Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
Patricia A. Cain
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
Aliber Family Chair in Law Emerita
University of Iowa
Christopher Blakesley
Barrick Distinguished Scholar &
Cobeaga Law Firm Professor of Law
University of Nevada Las Vegas
Boyd School of Law
Anne C. Dailey
Evangeline Starr Professor of Law
University of Connecticut
School of Law
Nancy E. Dowd
David H. Levin Chair in Family Law
Director, Center on Children &
Families Professor of Law
University of Florida Levin College
of Law
14
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 45
Donald N. Duquette
Clinical Professor of Law
Director, National Quality
Improvement Center on the
Representation of Children in the
Child Welfare System
University of Michigan Law School
Louise Graham
Robert G. Lawson and William H.
Fortune Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of
Law
Amy E. Halbrook
Assistant Professor of Law
Director, NKU Chase Children's Law
Center Clinic
Chase College of Law
Northern Kentucky University
Vivian E. Hamilton
Professor of Law
William and Mary School of Law
Martha M. Ertman
Carole & Hanan Sibel Research
Professor
University of Maryland
Francis King Carey Law School
Leslie J. Harris
Dorothy Kliks Fones Professor
School of Law
University of Oregon
Jennifer Hendricks
Associate Professor
University of Colorado Law School
Zanita E. Fenton
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
Michael J. Higdon
Director of Legal Writing and
Associate Professor of Law
University of Tennessee College of
Law
A-2
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 46
Kay P. Kindred
Sara and Ralph Denton Professor of
Law
William S. Boyd School of Law
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lisa C. Ikemoto
Professor of Law
Martin Luther King, Jr. Research
Scholar
University of California, Davis
School of Law
Kristine S. Knaplund
Professor of Law
Pepperdine University School of Law
Anbal Rosario Lebrn
Visiting Assistant Professor
Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
University of Louisville
Melanie B. Jacobs
Associate Dean for Graduate and
International Programs
Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of
Law
Elizabeth L. MacDowell
Associate Professor of Law
Director, Family Justice Clinic
William S. Boyd School of Law,
UNLV
Courtney G. Joslin
Professor of Law
University of California, Davis
School of Law
Maya Manian
Professor of Law
University of San Francisco
School of Law
Inga Markovits
The Friends of Joe Jamail Regents
Chair
University of Texas School of Law
Laura T. Kessler
Professor of Law
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
Nancy G. Maxwell
Professor of Law
Washburn University School of Law
A-3
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Jennifer B. Mertus
Professor of Legal Writing
Director, Center for Children's Rights
Director, China Study Abroad
Program
Whittier Law School
Page: 47
Suelyn Scarnecchia
Clinical Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
Rebecca L. Scharf
Associate Professor of Law
William S. Boyd School of Law
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Melissa Murray
Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley
Douglas NeJaime
Professor of Law
UC Irvine School of Law
Julie Shapiro
Professor of Law
Faculty Fellow, Fred T. Korematsu
Center for Law and Equality
Seattle University School of Law
Angela Onwuachi-Willig
Charles M. and Marion J. Kierscht
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law
Jana Singer
Professor of Law
University of Maryland
Frances King Carey School of Law
Laura Oren
Professor Emerita
University of Houston Law Center
Mark Strasser
Trustees Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Kermit Roosevelt
Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania Law
School
Frank Vandervort
Clinical Professor of Law
Child Advocacy Law Clinic
Juvenile Justice Law Clinic
University of Michigan Law
Laura A. Rosenbury
Professor of Law
John S. Lehmann Research Professor
Washington University School of
Law
Michael S. Wald
Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of
Law, Emeritus
Stanford Law School
Clifford Rosky
Professor of Law
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
D. Kelly Weisberg
Professor of Law
Hastings College of the Law
San Francisco, CA
Lois A. Weithorn
Professor of Law
UC Hastings College of the Law
Verna L. Williams
Judge Joseph P. Kinneary Professor
of Law
Co-Director, Center for Race, Gender,
and Social Justice
University of Cincinnati College of
Law
Wendy W. Williams
Professor Emerita
Georgetown University Law Center
A-5
Page: 48
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 49
No. 14-31037
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on
filed electronically with the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit through the CM/ECF system. I certify that service will be
accomplished by the CM/ECF system for all counsel of record.
s/ Sara Bartel
Sara Bartel
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Family Law Professors
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512814842
Page: 50
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of FED. R. APP. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because:
this brief contains
6,653
words, excluding the parts of the
brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(5)
and the type style requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because:
this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using
Microsoft Word 2010
in
14 point Times New Roman font with
footnotes in 12 point Times New Roman font
, or
s/ Sara Bartel
Sara Bartel
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 268-6000
Fax: (415) 268-7522
Email: sbartel@mofo.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Family Law Professors
sf-3470576