Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In The
AS AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------LORI SWANSON
Attorney General
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ALAN I. GILBERT
Solicitor General
JACOB CAMPION
Assistant Attorney General
Counsel of Record
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2128
(651) 757-1459 (Voice)
(651) 296-1410 (TTY)
jacob.campion@ag.state.mn.us
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
State of Minnesota
================================================================
COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964
WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................
iii
ARGUMENT ........................................................
G. Federal
Courts Repeatedly Strike
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued
Page
1. In the 43 years since Baker, this
Court has provided substantial
guidance supporting the rights of
same-sex couples ............................ 15
2. The procreation rationale does not
support the prohibition of samesex marriage ................................... 18
B. Married Same-Sex Couples From
Minnesota Should Be Able To Cross
State Lines Without Their Marriages
Disintegrating ..................................... 20
CONCLUSION..................................................... 25
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
FEDERAL COURT CASES
2014) ....................................................................2, 14
2014) ........................................................................13
iv
Page
(2013) .......................................................................16
2014) ........................................................................22
Page
Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410 (M.D.
2005) ..........................................................................5
available at https://acis.alabama.gov/display
docs.cfm?no=642402&event=4AN12324A .........1, 14
vi
Page
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
STATUTES
vii
Page
MUNICIPAL CODES
(2010) .......................................................................11
viii
Page
(2009) .......................................................................11
ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES
Associated Press, Gay couples claim 1 in 3
ix
Page
Br. of 23 Employers and Organizations Repre
senting Employers as Amici Curiae in Sup
port of Appellees, Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d
648 (7th Cir. 2014) (Nos. 14-2526 & 14-2386)........21
Br. of Pls.-Appellees, DeBoer v. Snyder, 772
F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) (No. 14-1341), 2014
WL 2631744.............................................................21
Br. of Pls.-Appellees, Tanco v. Haslam, 772
F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) (No. 14-5297), 2014
WL 2800979.............................................................21
Gary J. Gates et al., Adoption and Foster Care
by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United
States, THE WILLIAMS INSTITUTE, UCLA SCH.
OF LAW (Mar. 2007), http://williamsinstitute.
law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-BadgettMacomber-Chambers-Final-Adoption-Report
Mar-2007.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2015) ................19
Gary J. Gates, LGBT Parenting in the United
States, THE WILLIAMS INSTITUTE, UCLA SCH. OF
LAW (Feb. 2013), http://williamsinstitute.law.
ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf
(last visited Mar. 2, 2015) .......................................18
Gary J. Gates & Abigail M. Cooke, Minnesota
Census Snapshot: 2010, THE WILLIAMS IN
STITUTE, UCLA SCH. OF LAW, http://williams
institute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Census
2010Snapshot_Minnesota_v2.pdf (last visited
Mar. 2, 2015) ...........................................................19
H.R. Rep. 104-664 ............................................. 7, 10, 12
Page
Human Rights Campaign, Stories of Adoption,
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/adoption
stories (last visited Mar. 2, 2015) ...........................19
Jim Ragsdale, State of Their Unions, ST. PAUL
PIONEER PRESS, Jan. 29, 2004 ...................................9
Laura Smidzik, Yes: In more than 515 ways,
DULUTH NEWS TRIB., Jan. 5, 2009 ...........................20
Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, SameSex Marriage in Minnesota, http://www.leg.
state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?issue=gay (last
visited Mar. 2, 2015) .................................................9
Molly Guthrey, Elizabeth Hernandez & Doug
Belden, A year of same-sex marriage. More
love. More happiness., ST. PAUL PIONEER
PRESS, July 31, 2014................................................12
Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, Safe
Schools: Secondary Survey Compilation Re
port 1994-1997 (Mar. 1998) ....................................13
Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State,
http://minnesotaelectionresults.sos.state.mn.us/
Results/AmendmentResultsStatewide/1 (last
visited Mar. 2, 2015)................................................... 11
Peter Baker, President Quietly Signs Law Aimed
at Gay Marriages, WASH. POST, Sept. 22, 1996 ..........7
xi
Page
Richard Wolf, Handwriting on the wall for gay
marriage, USA TODAY, Feb. 9, 2015 .......................15
U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, No. B-275860,
OGC-97-16, Defense of Marriage Act (1997),
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/
223674.pdf (1997) (last visited Mar. 2, 2015) ...........7
U.S. News, Health Rankings & Advice, Cincin
nati Childrens Hospital Medical Center,
http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/
oh/cincinnati-childrens-hospital-medical-center6410391/rankings (last visited Mar. 2, 2015) ........22
U.S. News, Health Rankings & Advice, Cleve
land Clinic, http://health.usnews.com/best
hospitals/area/oh/cleveland-clinic-6410670/
rankings (last visited Mar. 2, 2015) .......................22
1
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
In 2013, the Minnesota Legislature legalized
same-sex marriage. Minnesota has an interest in
ensuring that all of its citizens lawful marriages are
recognized by other states.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that
the refusal to issue a marriage license to a same-sex
couple did not violate the United States Constitution.
Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn. 1971).
This Court summarily dismissed the appeal of that
decision for want of a substantial federal question.
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
Our country has changed considerably in the 43
years since the Baker decision. A total of 36 states1
3
ARGUMENT
I. Evolution Of The Law Regarding SameSex Marriage.
A. Baker v. Nelson.
In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that
the refusal to issue a marriage license to a same-sex
couple did not violate the First, Eighth, Ninth or
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Consti
tution. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn.
1971). In Baker, a same-sex couple filed an action in
Minnesota state court seeking a writ of mandamus
requiring a county official to issue a Minnesota
marriage license to them. Id. at 185. The district
court directed the official not to issue them a mar
riage license. Id. The couple appealed, and the Min
nesota Supreme Court affirmed. Id.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minne
sota law prohibited same-sex marriage. Id. at 186.
The court dismissed the couples First and Eighth
Amendment claims without discussion. Id. at 186 n.2.
The court rejected the couples due-process argument
for two reasons: (1) it d[id] not find support for [the
argument] in any decisions of the United States
Supreme Court; and (2) based on [t]he institution of
marriage as a union of man and woman, [which]
uniquely involve[ed] the procreation and rearing of
children within a family and the status of oppositesex marriage as a historic institution . . . more
deeply founded than the asserted contemporary
10
11
means to its stated objective to promote oppositesex marriages to encourage procreation. Id. at *6.
With the matter pending in the Minnesota
courts, the voters of Minnesota rejected the proposed
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex mar
riage. Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State,
http://minnesotaelectionresults.sos.state.mn.us/Results/
AmendmentResultsStatewide/1 (last visited Mar. 2, 2015).
F. Minnesota Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage.
In May 2013, Minnesota legalized same-sex
marriage. 2013 Minn. Laws ch. 74.8 The law went into
9
effect on August 1, 2013. See Minn. Stat. 645.02.
8
12
101; Haw. Rev. Stat. 572-1; 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/201; Me.
Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, 650-A; Md. Code Ann. Fam. Law 2-201;
Minn. Stat. 517.01; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 457:1-a; N.Y. Dom.
Rel. Law 10-a; R.I. Gen. Laws 15-1-1; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15,
8; Wash. Rev. Code 26.04.010.
13
14
15
16
17
which thus determine the course of their
lives. These considerations do not answer the
question before us, however. The issue is
whether the majority may use the power of
the State to enforce these views on the whole
society. . . . Our obligation is to define the
liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral
code.
Id. at 571 (quotation omitted). This Court recognized
that times can blind us to certain truths and later
generations can see that laws once thought necessary
and proper in fact serve only to oppress. Id. at 579.
The Court concluded that the constitution protects
personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation,
contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and
education and that [p]ersons in a homosexual
relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes,
just as heterosexual persons do. Id. at 559, 574.
As noted above, this Court also recently struck
down a portion of DOMA. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2682.
Since DOMAs principal effect is to identify a subset
of state-sanctioned marriages and make them une
qual, the Court found it unconstitutional. Id. at
2694, 2696.
This Court did not mention Baker in any of these
decisions. In fact, the Court has never cited Baker.
Similarly, the Minnesota Supreme Court has only
cited its Baker decision once in 43 years, and it was
for an unrelated purpose. See State v. Behl, 564
N.W.2d 560, 568 (Minn. 1997) (applying equal protec
tion clause in juvenile sentencing matter). More
18
19
20
21
22
Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) (Nos. 14-2526 &
14-2386).
Moving to a non-recognition state can also nega
tively impact the children of same-sex couples. While
the children once lived in a home with two married
parents, upon moving to a non-recognition state, the
legal validity of the family unit is no longer recog
nized. This makes it even more difficult for the
children to understand the integrity and closeness of
their own family and its concord with other families
in their community and in their daily lives. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. at 2694.
When a same-sex spouse serves the country in
the military, the couple does not have a choice in their
place of domicile. They go where there country sends
them. If a spouse is deployed to a non-recognition
state, their marital rights and privileges disintegrate.
See, e.g., Tanco v. Haslam, 7 F. Supp. 3d 759, 764-65,
770 (M.D. Tenn. 2014) (discussing Tennessees non
recognition of military familys marriage).
Many people travel, or even relocate, to another
state to pursue the best medical care for a spouse, a
child, or a parent, or to care for an ailing relative.
According to U.S. News, Cleveland Clinic and Cincin
nati Childrens Hospital Medical Center are two top
hospitals in the country.12 But if a same-sex couple
12
23
24
25
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
LORI SWANSON
Attorney General
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ALAN I. GILBERT
Solicitor General
JACOB CAMPION
Assistant Attorney General
Counsel of Record
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2128
(651) 757-1459 (Voice)
(651) 296-1410 (TTY)
jacob.campion.gilbert@ag.state.mn.us
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
State of Minnesota