14-556 Kenneth B Mehlman

8/9/2019 14-556 Kenneth B Mehlman

1/68

Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574

IN THE

Supreme ourt of the United States

JAMESOBERGEFELL,etal.,Petitioners,

v.

RICHARDHODGES,DIRECTOR,OHIODEPARTMENT

OFHEALTH,etal.,Respondents.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BRIEFOFAMICICURIAEKENNETHB.MEHLMAN

ETAL.SUPPORTINGPETITIONERS

SEANR.GALLAGHER REGINALD J.BROWNSTACYA.CARPENTER SETHP.WAXMANBENNETTL.COHEN CounselofRecord

POLSINELLIPC PAULR.Q.WOLFSON1515WynkoopStreet DINAB.MISHRASuite600 WILMERCUTLERPICKERINGDenver,CO 80202 HALEANDDORRLLP

1875PennsylvaniaAve.,NWWashington,DC 20006(202)[email protected]

ADDITIONAL CAPTIONS AND COUNSEL LISTED ON INSIDE COVER


2/68

BRITTANIHENRY,etal.,Petitioners,

v.

RICHARDHODGES,DIRECTOR,OHIODEPARTMENTOFHEALTH,etal.,Respondents.

VALERIATANCO,etal.,Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAMEDWARD“BILL”HASLAM,etal.,Respondents.

APRILDEBOER,etal.,Petitioners,v.

RICHARDSNYDER,etal.,Respondents.

GREGORYBOURKE,etal.,Petitioners,

v.

STEVEBESHEAR,INHISOFFICIALCAPACITYASGOVERNOROFKENTUCKY,Respondent.

MARKC.FLEMINGFELICIAH.ELLSWORTHELISABETHM.OPPENHEIMERALLISONTRZOPWILMERCUTLERPICKERING

HALEANDDORRLLP60StateStreetBoston,MA 02109

ALANE.SCHOENFELDWILMERCUTLERPICKERING

HALEANDDORRLLP7WorldTradeCenter250GreenwichStreetNewYork,NY 10007


3/68

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES...........................................ii

INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE...................................1

SUMMARYOFARGUMENT.........................................1

ARGUMENT.......................................................................6

I. EQUAL ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE PRO-MOTES THE CONSERVATIVE VALUES OF

STABILITY, MUTUAL SUPPORT, AND MU-TUALOBLIGATION........................................................6

II. THEFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTREQUIRESEQUAL ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE BE-CAUSE THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE, FACT-BASED JUSTIFICATION FOR GOVERNMENTTO EXCLUDE SAMESEX COUPLES INCOMMITTEDRELATIONSHIPS....................................13

A. TheFactsDoNotSupportAnyOfThePutative Rationales For Marriage

Bans.......................................................................16B. Even If The Marriage Bans Were

BasedOnConcernsForTraditionAndCaution In The Face Of SocietalChange, That Does Not Sustain TheirConstitutionality.................................................23

III. THIS COURT SHOULD ENSURE THAT GOV-ERNMENTS DO NOT DENY THE RIGHTSAND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CIVIL MAR-RIAGETOSAMESEXCOUPLES.................................27

CONCLUSION.................................................................32

APPENDIX: ListofAmiciCuriae................................1a

(i)


4/68

ii

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

BoardofTrusteesofUniversityofAlabamav. Garrett,531U.S.356(2001)......................................14

Boddiev.Connecticut,401U.S.371(1971).....................8

Bourke v. Beshear , 996 F. Supp. 2d 542 (W.D.Ky.2014).....................................................12,25

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483

(1954)............................................................................24

Buckleyv.Valeo,424U.S.1(1976)................................31

CitizensUnitedv.FEC,558U.S.310(2010)................30

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center ,473U.S.432(1985).....................................................30

Craigv.Boren,429U.S.190(1976)................................23

DeBoer v. Snyder , 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir.2014).................................................................... passim

DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757(E.D.Mich.2014)............................9,14,19,20,23,25

DepartmentofAgriculture v.Moreno,413U.S.528(1973).....................................................................14

District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570(2008)......................................................................27,31

F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S.412(1920).....................................................................14

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti,

435U.S.765(1978).....................................................31Golinski v. OPM , 824 F. Supp. 2d 968

(N.D.Cal.2012).....................................................12,25


5/68

iii

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Hallv.Florida,134S.Ct.1986(2014)...........................27

Hamby v. Parnell, No. 14089, 2014 WL5089399(D.AlaskaOct.12,2014).......................15,20

Hellerv.Doe,509U.S.312(1993).............................14,25

Hollingsworthv.Perry,133S.Ct.2652(2013)...............3

Hunterv.Erickson,393U.S.385(1969)........................26

Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014).............................................................................17

Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181(D.Utah2013).............................................................27

Lamb’sChapelv.CenterMorichesUnionFreeSchoolDistrict,508U.S.384(1993).........................31

Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman,277U.S.32(1928).......................................................14

Lovev.Beshear ,989F.Supp.2d536(W.D.Ky.

2014).......................................................................15,17

Lovingv.Virginia,388U.S.1(1967)..................7,8,9,30

Lucas v. FortyFourth General Assembly of Colorado,377U.S.713(1964)...................................28

M.L.B.v.S.L.J.,519U.S.102(1996).................................8

Maynardv.Hill,125U.S.190(1888)...............................7

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742(2010)............................................................................29

Meyerv.Nebraska,262U.S.390(1923)...........................8MillerElv.Cockrell,537U.S.322(2003).....................27


6/68

iv


Page(s)

New York State Club Ass’n v. City of NewYork,487U.S.1(1988)..............................................14

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254(1964)............................................................................31

Palmorev.Sidoti,466U.S.429(1984)...........................24

Perryv. Schwarzenegger,704F.Supp.2d921(N.D.Cal.2010).................................................9,20,25

Piercev.SocietyofSisters,268U.S.510(1925)..............8

Schuette v. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action,134S.Ct.1623(2014).............................28,29

Searcyv.Strange,No.14208,2015WL328728(S.D.Ala.Jan.23,2015).............................................15

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson,316U.S.535(1942).......................................................8

Stantonv.Stanton,421U.S.7(1975).............................23

Taylorv.Louisiana,419U.S.522(1975).......................24

Trammelv.UnitedStates,445U.S.40(1980)..............24

Turnerv.Safley,482U.S.78(1987).................................8

UnitedStatesv.Lopez,514U.S.549(1995)...................28

United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675(2013)................................................................... passim

Watsonv.CityofMemphis,373U.S.526(1963)..........26

West Virginia State Board of Education v.

Barnette,319U.S.624(1943)....................................30 Widmarv.Vincent,454U.S.263(1981)........................31


7/68

v


Page(s)

Williamsv.Illinois,399U.S.235(1970).......................25

Windsorv.UnitedStates,699F.3d169(2dCir.2012).............................................................................21

Wisconsinv.Yoder ,406U.S.205(1972)........................31

Zablockiv.Redhail,434U.S.374(1978).....................6,8

DOCKETEDCASES

Loving v. Virginia,AppelleeBrief,388U.S.1(1967)(No.66395)......................................................30

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Transcript, 704 F.Supp.2d921(N.D.Cal.2010)(No.092292).............8

CONSTITUTIONALANDSTATUTORYPROVISIONS

Ala.Const.art.I,§3.01.......................................................5

Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann.§§411493to1493.02....................5

Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann.§52571b.........................................5

D.C.Code§46406(e)...........................................................5

Fla.Stat.Ann.§§761.01.05...............................................5

IdahoCodeAnn.§§73401to404.....................................5

775Ill.Comp.Stat.Ann.35/1/99......................................5

Kan.Stat.Ann.§§605301to5305...................................5

Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann.§446.350.............................................5

La.Rev.Stat.Ann.§§13:5231:5242.................................5

Md.Const.,DeclarationofRightsart.36........................5 Miss.CodeAnn.§11611...................................................5

http:///reader/full/761.01-.05http:///reader/full/761.01-.05


8/68

vi


Page(s)

Mo.Ann.Stat.§§1.302.307................................................5

N.M.Stat.§§28221to5...................................................5

Okla.Stat.Ann.tit.51,§§251258.....................................5

71Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann.§§24012407.................................5

Pa.Const.art.1,§3.............................................................5

R.I.Gen.Laws§§4280.11to4........................................5

S.C.CodeAnn.§§13210to60........................................5

Tenn.CodeAnn.§41407...................................................5

Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code.Ann.§§110.001-.012..................................................................................5

UtahCodeAnn.§§63L5101to403................................5

Va.CodeAnn.§§571to2.02............................................5

Va.Const.art.1,§16...........................................................5

OTHERAUTHORITIES

2 Burke, Edmund, The Works of the RightHonourableEdmundBurke(Belled.1892)..........25

Cameron,David,AddresstotheConservativeParty Conference (Oct. 5, 2011), availableat http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukpolitics-15189614.......................................................................13

Cherlin,AndrewJ., AmericanMarriageintheEarly TwentyFirst Century, in 15 The FutureofChildren33(2005)....................................10

Chernow,Ron,Washington:ALife(2010)....................22

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politicshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics


9/68

vii


Page(s)

Choper, Jesse H. & John C. Yoo, Can theGovernmentProhibitGayMarriage? ,50S.Tex.L.Rev.15(2008)..........................................11,22

2 de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America(HenryReevetrans.,Saunders&Otley1835).....................................................................7

Farr, Rachel H., et al., Parenting and Child

Development inAdoptive Families: DoesParental Sexual Orientation Matter?, 14AppliedDevelopmentalSci.164(2010)...................20

FederalistNo. 78 (Hamilton) (JacobE.Cookeed.,1961)......................................................................29

Gates,GaryJ.,LGBTParentingintheUnitedStates (Feb. 2013), available at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9xs6g8xx..........................11

Goldberg, Abbie E. & JuliAnna Z. Smith,PredictorsofPsychologicalAdjustmentinEarly Placed Adopted Children WithLesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents,27J.FamilyPsychol.431(2013)...............................21

Goldwater, Barry, The Conscience of aConservative(1960)....................................................31

Goldwater, Barry, Speech at the RepublicanNationalConvention(July16,1964),avail-able at http://www.washingtonpost.com /wpsrv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm.............................................................................3

http:///reader/full/http://www.washingtonpost.comhttp:///reader/full/http://www.washingtonpost.com


10/68

viii


Page(s)

InstituteforAmericanValues,WhenMarriageDisappears: The New Middle America(2010)............................................................................10

Lavner,JustinA.,etal.,CanGayandLesbianParents Promote Healthy DevelopmentinHighRiskChildrenAdoptedFromFosterCare?, 82 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 465(2012)............................................................................21

Madison, James, Speech in Congress on theRemovalPower(June8,1789),in1 AnnalsofCong.448(JosephGalesed.,1790)......................29

Perrin, Ellen C., et al., Technical Report:Coparent or SecondParent Adoption bySameSex Parents, 109 Pediatrics 341(2002)............................................................................20

SupremeCourtRule37.6...................................................1

van Gelderen, Loes, et al., Quality of Life of AdolescentsRaisedFromBirthbyLesbianMothers: The US National LongitudinalFamily Study, 33 J. Developmental &Behav.Pediatrics17(2012).......................................21

5 The Writings of James Madison: 17871790(GaillardHunted.,1904)...........................................28


11/68

INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE

1

Amiciaresocialandpoliticalconservatives,moder-ates,andlibertariansfromdiversebackgrounds.Manyhave served as elected or appointed officeholders invarious Presidential administrations, as governors,mayors, and other officeholders in States and citiesacrosstheNation,asmembersofCongress,asambas-sadors,asmilitaryofficers,asofficialsinpoliticalcam-paignsandpoliticalparties,andasadvocatesandactiv-istsforvariouspoliticalandsocialcauses.Amicisup-port traditional conservative values, including thebe-

liefintheimportanceofstablefamilies,aswellasthecommitmenttolimitedgovernmentandtheprotectionofindividualfreedom.Becausetheybelievethatthoseconservative values are consistent with—indeed, areadvanced by—affordingcivilmarriagerightsto samesex couples, amici submit that the decision belowshouldbereversed.

A full list of amici is provided as an Appendix tothisbrief.

SUMMARYOFARGUMENT

In2013,thisCourtstruckdownthefederalDefenseofMarriageAct (“DOMA”), concluding that the law—which refused to honor for federal purposes the mar-riagesofsamesexcouplesvalidlymarriedunderStatelaw—violated the core promises of the United States

1BylettersonfilewiththeClerk,allpartieshaveconsented

tothefilingof thisbrief. PursuanttoSupremeCourtRule37.6,amicistatethatnocounselforapartyauthoredthisbriefinwhole

orinpart;no counselorparty madeamonetary contribution in-tendedtofundthepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief;andnoperson—otherthanamiciortheircounsel—madesuchamonetarycontribution.


12/68

2

Constitution. SeeUnitedStatesv.Windsor ,133S.Ct.2675(2013).TheCourtinWindsorrecognizedthatthe“[r]esponsibilities” attendant to marriage, “as well as[the] rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of theperson.” Id.at2694. TheCourtthereforeheld thatalaw treating samesex couples differently from othersby withholding those rights and responsibilities “de-means”samesexcouples,“impose[s]inequality”and“astigma” on them, denies them “equal dignity,” treatsthem as “unworthy,”and “humiliates”and makesvul-nerabletheirchildren. Id.at26932694.Thosechildren,

the Court explained, should not be “instruct[ed]” thatthe marriageofthe parentswho provide for and raisethem“islessworthy”—andneithertheynortheirpar-ents should suffer fromthe law’splacement of“samesexcouplesinanunstableposition”ofhaving“second-tier”relationships. Id.at2694,2696. Thus,thisCourtrejected a law that would “restrict the freedom” ofthosecouplesandinfringe“thelibertyoftheperson”by“impos[ing] a disability on the class”—by “dispar-ag[ing]”and“injur[ing]”asetofindividualsentitledto“personhoodanddignity.”Id.at2693,26952696.

Although amici hold a broad spectrum of sociallyand politically conservative,moderate, and libertarianviews,amicisharetheviewthatlawsthatbarsamesexcouples from the institutionofcivilmarriage, with allitsattendantprofoundlyimportantrights andrespon-sibilities,areinconsistentwiththeUnitedStatesCon-stitution’s dual promises of equal protection and dueprocess. Themarriage bans challenged here, like theactatissueinWindsor ,targetgayandlesbiancouplesand their families for injurious governmental treat-

ment. Thebansareaccordinglyinconsistentwithami-ci’sunderstandingof the properly limited roleofgov-ernment. Rather, amici embrace Barry Goldwater’s


13/68

3

expressionofthatunderstanding,namelythat“[w]edonotseektoleadanyone’slifeforhim—weseekonlytosecurehisrightsandtoguaranteehimopportunitytostrive,withgovernmentperformingonlythoseneededandconstitutionallysanctionedtaskswhichcannototh-erwisebeperformed.”2

Amici further believe that when the governmentdoesactinwaysthataffectindividualfreedominmat-tersoffamilyandchildrearing,itshouldpromotefami-lysupportive values like responsibility, fidelity, com-mitment, and stability. Much has been written about

thedeleteriousimpactoffamilybreakdowninourNa-tion today. There is a need for more Americans tochoosetoparticipateintheinstitutionofmarriage. Yetthesebans,bydenyingeachmemberofanentireclassofAmericancitizenstherighttomarrythepersonheorsheloves,discouragethoseimportantfamilyvalues.They discourage responsibility, fidelity, and commit-ment. Andtheyharmchildren,denyingthemandtheirlovingparents thebasic legalprotectionsthatprovidestabilityandsecuritysocriticaltochildrearing.

Manyofthesignatoriestothisbriefpreviouslydidnotsupportcivilmarriageforsamesexcouples;othersdidnotholdapositionontheissueuntilrecently.Thelist of signatories to this brief overlaps with, but alsoextendsbeyond,thosewhojoinedasimilarbriefin Hol-lingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), likewisesupporting there the couples challenging California’smarriagerestrictive Proposition 8. As civil marriagehasbecomearealityforsamesexcouplesin36Statesand the DistrictofColumbia, amici, likemany Ameri-

2Goldwater,Speech at theRepublicanNationalConvention

(July 16, 1964), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wphttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp


14/68

4

cans,haveconsideredtheresults,reexaminedtheirownpositions,andconcludedthatthereisnolegitimate,factbased reason for denying samesex couples the samerecognitioninlawthatisavailabletooppositesexcou-ples. Rather, amici have concluded that marriage isstrengthened,anditsvaluetosocietyandtoindividualfamiliesandcouplesispromoted,byprovidingaccesstocivil marriage for all American couples—heterosexualor gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriageprovidesstability forthechildrenofsamesexcouples,thevalueofwhichcannotbeoverestimated.Inlightof

these conclusions, amici believe that the FourteenthAmendment prohibits States from denying samesexcouples the legal rights and responsibilities that flowfromtheinstitutionofcivilmarriage. Thisisespeciallytruewhere,ashere,thevalidityofthousandsofexistingmarriages of samesex couples could be thrown intodoubtbyacontraryruling. Indeed,amici’sconcernforthestabilityofexistingandfuturefamiliesisparticular-lyheightenedinthiscontext.

Amiciacknowledgethatdeeplyheldsocial,cultural,

andreligious tenetsmay lead sincere andfairmindedpeopletotaketheoppositeview.Butnomatterhowstrong,sincere,orlongstandingtheseviews,theycan-not,underourconstitutionalsystem,serveasthebasisfordenyingthisclassofpeopleaccesstotheinstitutionof civil marriage in the absence of a legitimate, factbasedgovernmentalgoal. Amicitakethispositionwiththe understanding that requiring access to civil mar-riage for samesex couples—which is the only issueraisedinthesecases—neednotposeanythreattoreli-gious freedom or to the institution of religious mar-

riage. Amici believe firmly that religious individualsand organizations should, and will, express their ownviewsandmaketheirowndecisionsaboutwhetherand


15/68

5

howtoparticipateinmarriagesbetweenpersonsofthesame sex, and that the government should notintervene in those decisions—just as it must notintervene in these couples’ decisions to participate intheinstitutionofcivilmarriage.3

3Amici support the free exercise of religion, and have the

deepestrespectforthosewhodefendit.Giventherobustfederaland State protections for the free exercise of religion,however,amicidonotbelievethataccesstocivilmarriageforsamesexcou-plesshouldposeathreattoreligiousfreedom.Amicinote,forin-

stance,thatmanyStateshaveexpansiveconstitutionalprotectionsforreligiousliberty. See,e.g.,Pa.Const.art.1,§3(“nohumanau-thority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with therights of conscience”); Md. Const., DeclarationofRights art. 36;Va.Const.art.1,§16.AndnumerousStateshaveenactedstatutesdesignedtoensurereligiousliberty,bothgenerallyandinconnec-tionwithaccesstocivilmarriageforsamesexcouples. See,e.g.,Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. §446.350(thegovernment may not burdenaperson’sexerciseof religionexcept through the least restrictivemeans available, and for a compelling purpose); D.C. Code §46-406(e)(religioussocietiesornonprofitorganizationscontrolledbyreligioussocietiesarenotrequiredto provideservicesor accom-modations related to the celebrationofany marriage, ortopro-

moteanymarriagethroughitsprograms,counseling,orretreats);seealsoConn.Gen.Stat.Ann.§52571b;R.I.Gen.Laws§§4280.1-1to4;775Ill.Comp.Stat.Ann.35/1/99;Fla.Stat.Ann.§§761.01-.05;Ala.Const.art.I,§3.01;Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann.§§411493to-1493.02;S.C.CodeAnn.§§13210to60;Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code.Ann.§§110.001.012;IdahoCodeAnn.§§73401to404;N.M.Stat. §§28221 to 5; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 51, §§251258; 71 Pa.Cons. Stat. Ann. §§24012407; Mo. Ann. Stat. §§1.302.307; Va.Code Ann. §§571 to 2.02; UtahCode Ann. §§63L5101to 403;Tenn. Code Ann. §41407; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§13:5231:5242;Kan.Stat.Ann.§§605301to5305(2013);Miss.CodeAnn.§1161-1. These laws, as well as the protections afforded by the FirstAmendment,reflectourNation’scommitmenttotheaccommoda-

tion of diverse perspectives. In a tolerant society, the right tomarrycanandshouldcoexistwiththerighttodisagreerespectful-lyand todecline toparticipate as individualsbasedon sincerelyheldreligiousbeliefs.


16/68

6

Amici believe strongly in the principle of judicialrestraint, under which courts generally defer tolegislatures and the electorate on matters of socialpolicy. Amicialsobelievethatcourtsshouldnotrushtoinvoke the Constitution to remove issues from thenormal democraticprocess. But amiciequallybelievethatactionsbylegislaturesandpopularmajoritiescanon occasion pose significant threats to individualfreedomandthat,whentheydo,courtshavethepowerto—and should—intervene. Our constitutionaltradition empowers and requires the judiciary to

protect our most cherished liberties againstoverreaching by thegovernment, including overreachthrough an act of the legislature or electorate. Thatprinciple, no less than our commitment to democraticselfgovernment,isnecessarytoindividualfreedomandlimited government. It is precisely at moments likethis one—when discriminatory laws appear to reflectunexaminedandunwarrantedassumptionsratherthanfacts and evidence, and the rights of one group ofcitizens hang in the balance—that the courts’intervention is most needed. Amici accordingly urge

thisCourttoreversethejudgmentbelow.

ARGUMENT

I. E

QUAL

A

CCESS

T

O

C

IVIL

M

ARRIAGE

P

ROMOTES

T

HE

C

ONSERVATIVE

V

ALUES

O

F

S

TABILITY

, M

UTUAL

S

UPPORT

,A

ND

M

UTUAL

O

BLIGATION

Amicistart from thepremise—recognized bythisCourt on numerous occasions—that marriage is afundamentalrightprotectedbyourConstitutionandavenerable institution that confers countless other

rightsandresponsibilities,bothuponthosewhomarryand upon society at large. See, e.g., Zablocki v.Redhail,434U.S.374,384(1978)(“Marriageisacoming


17/68

7

together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring,and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is anassociation that promotes a way of life, not causes; aharmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateralloyalty,notcommercialorsocialprojects.Yetitisanassociationforasnobleapurposeasanyinvolvedinourprior decisions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).By reinforcing essential values such as commitment,faithfulness, responsibility, and sacrifice, marriage isthe foundation of the secure families that form thebuildingblocksofourcommunitiesandourNation. See

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888)(marriage is “the foundation of the family and ofsociety, without which there would be neithercivilization nor progress”). It both provides aprotectiveshelterandreducestheneedforrelianceonthe state. As a perceptive observer of Americansociety wrote almost two centuries ago, “There iscertainly no country in the world where the tie ofmarriage is so much respected as in America ….[W]hentheAmericanretiresfromtheturmoilofpubliclifetothebosomofhisfamily,hefindsinittheimageof

order and of peace.… [H]e afterwards carries [thatimage]withhimintopublicaffairs.” 2deTocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica230(Reevetrans.,Saunders&Otley1835).

Choosingtomarryisalsoaparadigmaticexerciseofhumanliberty. Lovingv.Virginia,388U.S.1,12(1967)(“Thefreedomtomarryhaslongbeenrecognizedasoneof the vital personal rights essential to the orderlypursuit ofhappiness by free men.”). Thosewho havebeen denied the right to marry may be the most

eloquent witnesses to its fundamental importance toliberty. As an expert on the history of marriageobserved, “[w]hen slaves were emancipated, they


18/68

8

flockedtogetmarried. Andthiswasnottrivialtothem,by any means. [One] exslave who had also been aUnionsoldier...declared,‘Themarriagecovenantisthefoundationofallourrights.’” Transcript202203,Perryv.Schwarzenegger,704F.Supp.2d921(N.D.Cal.2010)(No. 092292). Moreover, the mutual dependence andobligation fostered by marriage affirmatively advancethe appropriately narrow and modest role ofgovernment.

For those who choose to marry, the rights andresponsibilities conveyed by civil marriage provide a

bulwarkagainstunwarrantedgovernmentinterventioninto deeply personal concerns such as medical andchildrearing decisions. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society ofSisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534535 (1925) (affirming “theliberty of parents and guardians to direct theupbringing and education of children under theircontrol”); Meyer v.Nebraska,262U.S.390,401(1923)(recognizing “the power of parents to control theeducation of their own”). Thus, this Court hasrecognizedonnumerousoccasionsthatthefreedomto

marry is one of the fundamental liberties that anordered society must strive to protect and promote.4

4See,e.g.,M.L.B.v.S.L.J.,519U.S.102,116(1996)(“Choices

about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children areamong associationalrightsthisCourthasrankedas ‘ofbasic im-portance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the FourteenthAmendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disre-gard,ordisrespect.”(citationomitted));Turnerv.Safley,482U.S.78,95(1987)(“[T]hedecisiontomarryisafundamentalright”andan “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”);Zablocki,434U.S.at384(“[T]herighttomarryisoffundamental

importanceforallindividuals.”);Loving,388U.S.at12;Meyer ,262U.S. at399 (the right“to marry, establish a home and bringupchildren”isacentralpartofconstitutionallyprotectedliberty);seealso, e.g., Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971)


19/68

9

This Court has reaffirmed that freedom by securingmarriage rights for prisoners, Turner v. Safley, 482U.S. 78, 95 (1987); striking down laws requiringcourtpermission to marry, Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388; andeliminating discriminatory restrictionson theright tomarry, Loving,388U.S.at12; Windsor ,133S.Ct.at2696. “Takentogether,boththe Windsor andLovingdecisionsstand forthe proposition that,without someoverridinglegitimateinterest,thestatecannotuseitsdomesticrelationsauthoritytolegislatefamiliesoutofexistence.” DeBoerv.Snyder ,973F.Supp.2d757,774

(E.D.Mich.), rev’d,772F.3d388(6thCir.2014).Our national commitment to civil marriage—and

this Court’s recognition of its fundamental status—reflectsacommonunderstandingthatthosewhochooseto marry benefit tremendously from thestability andmutual support and obligation that the legalrelationship confers. Some of these protections areconcrete. See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 704 F.Supp. 2d 921, 962 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (married couples“farebetter. Theyarephysicallyhealthier. Theytend

tolive longer. Theyengage in fewerriskybehaviors.They look better on measures of psychological well-being”). Others are yet more profound, as the legalrelationshipofmarriagedistinctlyconfersoncouples—and their children—numerous enhancements toindividualautonomyandfamilysecurity.

For instance, marriage makes it immeasurablyeasierforfamilymemberstoplanwithanddecideforone another. Married individuals can make medical

(“[M]arriageinvolvesinterestsofbasicimportanceinoursociety”andis“afundamentalhumanrelationship.”);Skinnerv.Oklahomaexrel.Williamson, 316 U.S.535, 541 (1942) (marriage is“oneofthebasiccivilrightsofman”).


20/68

10

decisionstogether(orforeachotherifonespouseisnotable tomake a decision)andcan make joint decisionsfortheupbringingofchildren;theycanplanjointlyfortheir financial future and their retirement; they canhold property together; they can share a spouse’smedicalinsurancepolicyandhavethehealthcoveragecontinue fora period after a spouse’sdeath;and theyhave increased protections against creditors upon thedeathofa spouse. Some—notall—oftheserightsandresponsibilitiescanbe approximatedoutside marriagewith expensive legal assistance, but only marriage

provides a family with the security that those rightsand responsibilities will be automatically availablewhentheyaremostneeded.

Perhaps most importantly, marriage protectschildren. “We know, for instance, that children whogrow up in intact, married families are significantlymorelikelytograduatefromhighschool,finishcollege,become gainfully employed, and enjoy a stable familylife themselves[.]” Institute for American Values,WhenMarriageDisappears: TheNewMiddleAmerica

52 (2010); see also id. at 95 (“Children who grow upwithcohabitingcouplestendtohavemorenegativelifeoutcomescomparedto thosegrowingupwithmarriedcouples. Prominentreasonsarethatcohabitingcoupleshave a much higher breakup rate than do marriedcouples,alowerlevelofhouseholdincome,andahigherlevel ofchildabuse anddomestic violence.” (footnoteomitted)). These protectionshavebecomeevenmorecriticalinrecentdecades,asmaritalrateshavedeclinedand childrearing has become increasingly untetheredtomarriage. See,e.g.,Cherlin, AmericanMarriage in

theEarlyTwentyFirst Century,in15 The FutureofChildren33,3536(2005).


21/68

11

The protections that marriage offers couples andtheirchildrendonotdependonwhethertheindividualsformingthemarriedcoupleareofthesameoroppositesexes. Samesexcouples,justlikecouplescomposedofa man and a woman, benefit from the security andbilateralloyaltyconferredbycivilmarriage.Thesameistrueforthechildrenofthosecouples;itisstability,not the sex oftheir parents, thatprotectsthem. Seeinfra pp. 1821. The salutaryeffectsof civilmarriagedonotarisetoanylesserdegreewhentwowomenortwomen lawfully marryeachotherthanwhen aman

andawomanmarry. AsProfessorsJesseChoperand John Yoo—who support civil marriage for samesexcouplesasapolicychoice—haveexplained:

With regard to gay marriage, the cost of aprohibition is the restriction of the liberty oftwo individuals of the same sex who seekthesame legal status for an intimate relationshipthat is available to individuals of differentsexes. Thisharmmaynotberestrictedjusttothe individuals involved but may also involve

broader social costs. If the governmentbelievesthatmarriagehaspositivebenefitsforsociety,someorallofthosebenefitsmayattachto samesex marriages as well. Stablerelationships may produce more personalincome and less demands on welfare andunemployment programs; it may create thebestconditionsfortherearingofchildren;anditmayencourageindividualstoinvestandsaveforthefuture.

Choper & Yoo, Can the Government Prohibit Gay

Marriage?,50S.Tex.L.Rev.15,3334(2008).


22/68

12

There is no question that the hundreds of thouthousands of children being raised by samesexcouples5—some married, some precluded frommarrying—would be protected by the security andstability that civil marriage confers. This Court hasalreadysuggestedasmuch. SeeWindsor ,133S.Ct.at2694(recognizingthatDOMAplacedsamesexcouplesinthe“unstableposition”ofa“secondtier”relationshipthat “humiliate[d]” and harmed the children beingraisedbythosecouples);id.at2695(rejectingDOMA’simpositionof“financialharm[on]childrenofsamesex

couples”bydeprivingtheir familiesofvariousmaritalrightsandresponsibilities). Thedenialofcivilmarriagetosamesexcouplesdoesnotmeanthattheirchildrenwillberaisedbymarriedoppositesexcouples. Rather,thechoicehereisbetweenallowingsamesexcouplestomarry versus depriving their children of marriedparentsaltogether. Indeed,adecisionthatStatesmayexcludesamesexcouplesfromcivilmarriagemightcallinto doubt the status of marriages that have alreadybeen lawfully recognized, legally erasing existingfamilies—an even starker humiliation than that

condemnedinWindsor .

Courts across the country have repeatedly found“that it was the government’s failure to recognizesamesex marriages that harmedchildren,nothavingmarriedparentswhohappenedtobeofthesamesex.”Bourkev.Beshear ,996F.Supp.2d542,553(W.D.Ky.), rev’dsubnom.DeBoerv.Snyder ,772F.3d388(6thCir.2014); seealso,e.g.,Golinski v.OPM ,824F.Supp.2d968,992(N.D.Cal.2012)(“Thedenialofrecognitionand

5

See Gates, LGBT Parenting in the United States 1 (Feb.2013),availableathttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/9xs6g8xx(“Morethan125,000samesexcouplehouseholds…includenearly220,000childrenunderage18.”).

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9xs6g8xxhttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/9xs6g8xx


23/68

13

withholding of marital benefits to samesex couplesdoes nothing to support oppositesex parenting, butrathermerelyservestoendangerchildrenofsamesexparents[.]”).

Itispreciselybecausemarriageissoimportant inproducing and protecting strong and stable familystructures that the goal of strengthening familiesfavorscivilmarriageforsamesexcouples.AsBritishPrimeMinisterandConservativePartyLeaderDavidCameronexplained,“Conservativesbelieveinthetiesthat bind us; that society is stronger when we make

vowstoeachotherandsupporteachother. SoIdon’tsupportgaymarriagedespitebeingaConservative. IsupportgaymarriagebecauseI’maConservative.”6

II. T

HE

F

OURTEENTH

A

MENDMENT

R

EQUIRES

E

QUAL

A

CCESS

T

O

C

IVIL

M

ARRIAGE

B

ECAUSE

T

HERE

I

S

N

O

L

EGITIMATE

, F

ACT

-B

ASED

J

USTIFICATION

F

OR

G

OVERNMENT

T

O

E

XCLUDE

S

AME

-S

EX

C

OUPLES

I

N

C

OMMITTED

R

ELATIONSHIPS

In Windsor , this Court held that DOMA was

invalidbecauseit“differentiat[ed]”samesexcouplesinterms of their marital rights and responsibilities,rendering them “secondtier” and “humiliat[ing]” thechildrenbeingraisedbythem. 133S.Ct.at2694.Thisunequal classification of citizens, theCourt explained,exceeds the government’s authority in light of theConstitution’s guarantees of equal protection, which“withdraw[]fromGovernmentthepowertodegradeordemean”inthatmanner.Id.at2695. ThisCourtruledthat“nolegitimatepurposeovercomesthepurposeand

6Cameron, Address to the Conservative Party Conference

(Oct. 5, 2011), availableat http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukpolitics-15189614.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politicshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics


24/68

14

effect todisparageandto injure” individuals who areentitledto“personhoodanddignity.” Id.at2696. Justas in Windsor , the laws in these cases have the“purpose and practical effect … to impose adisadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” onsamesexcoupleswithrespectto civilmarriagerightsandresponsibilities. Id.at2693.

Laws that classify citizens and render themunequal in their access to civil rights andresponsibilities raise grave constitutional questions,and at a minimum such laws must have “reasonable

supportinfact,”NewYorkStateClubAss’n v.CityofN.Y., 487 U.S. 1, 17 (1988), and must “operate so asrationally to further” a legitimate government goal,Department of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 537(1973). TosurvivescrutinyundertheEqualProtectionClause,alawmustattheveryleastbefoundedinthe“realities”ofthesubjectcoveredbythatlaw.Hellerv.Doe,509U.S.312,321(1993)(“[E]venthestandardofrationality as we so often have defined it must findsomefootingintherealitiesofthesubjectaddressedby

the legislation.”). “[C]lassification[s] must bereasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon someground of difference having a fair and substantialrelation to the object of the legislation, so that allpersonssimilarlycircumstancedshallbetreatedalike.”F.S.RoysterGuanoCo.v.Virginia,253U.S.412,415(1920);seealsoBoardofTrs.ofUniv.ofAla.v.Garrett,531U.S.356, 367(2001) (attitudes unsubstantiated byrelevant facts are not sufficient to indicate thefurtherance of a legitimate government purpose);LouisvilleGas&Elec.Co.v.Coleman,277U.S.32,36-

37 (1928) (“[M]ere difference is not enough; theattempted classification ‘must always rest upon some


25/68

15

differencewhichbearsareasonableandjustrelationtotheact[.]’”).

Recent rulings in civil marriage cases haveobserved thatdiscrimination against samesex couplesin this context cannot survive any level of reviewbecause it is not rationally related to a legitimategovernmental purpose grounded in fact. See, e.g.,DeBoer ,973F.Supp.2dat768(“TheCourtfindsthatthe [Michigan Marriage Amendment] impermissiblydiscriminates against samesex couples in violation oftheEqualProtectionClausebecausetheprovisiondoes

notadvanceanyconceivablelegitimatestateinterest.”), rev’d, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014); Searcy v. Strange,No. 14208, 2015 WL 328728, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 23,2015) (“If anything, Alabama’s prohibition … detractsfrom its goal of promoting optimal environments forchildren.”); Hamby v. Parnell, No. 14089, 2014 WL5089399, at *12 (D. Alaska Oct. 12, 2014) (“Alaska’ssamesex marriage laws are a prime example of how‘thevaryingtreatmentofdifferentgroupsorpersonsissounrelatedtothe achievementof any combinationof

legitimatepurposesthatwecanonlyconcludethatthelegislature’sactionswereirrational.’”);Lovev.Beshear ,989F.Supp.2d536,547(W.D.Ky.2014)(“Ultimately,Kentucky’s laws banning samesex marriage cannotwithstand constitutional review regardless of thestandard.”).

Amici do not believe there is a legitimate, factbasedjustificationforexcludingsamesexcouplesfromcivil marriage. Over the past two decades, theargumentspresentedbyproponentsofsuchinitiativeshave been discredited by social science, rejected by

courts,andcontradictedbyamici’spersonalexperiencewith samesex couples, including those whose civilmarriageshavebeenlegallyperformedandrecognized


26/68

16

in various States. Amicithusdonot believethat any“reasonablesupportin fact”existsforargumentsthatallowingsamesexcouplestojoinincivilmarriagewilldamage or distort the institution, jeopardize children,or cause any other social ills. Rather, the facts andevidenceshowthatpermittingcivilmarriageforsamesex couples will enhance the institution, protectchildren, and benefit society generally. Banningmarriageforsamesexcouples,incontrast,underminesthese critical societalgoals: Such bans impedefamilyformation, harm children, and discourage fidelity,

responsibility,andstability.A. The Facts Do Not Support Any Of The

PutativeRationalesForMarriageBans

Proponents of laws like those at issue here haveadvancedseveralargumentsthattheycontendsupportthe exclusion ofsamesexcouples from civil marriage,principally relating to the bearing and raising ofchildren. Inparticular,proponents invoke (1)a childcentric,or‘‘conjugal,’’marriageculture: thenotionthatallowing the marriages of samesex couples will harm

the institution of marriage by severing it from child-rearing;(2)childwelfare: thenotion that children arebetteroffwhenraisedbytwoparentsofdifferentsexes;and(3)biology: thenotionsthatmarriageisimportantonly for oppositesex couples, who may procreateaccidentally, and that children are better off whenraised by two biological parents. Each of theseargumentsreflectsanunexaminedpreconceptionratherthanfactandhasbeenrefutedbysubstantialevidenceand common experience. Moreover, as this CourtrecognizedinWindsor ,itisthegovernmentalexclusion

ofsamesexcouplesfromtherightsandresponsibilitiesofcivil marriagethat ismost injurious tohundredsof


27/68

17

thousands of children, aswell as to the couples themthemselves.

ChildCentric, or “Conjugal,” Marriage Culture.Nocredibleevidencesupportsthetheorythatallowingaccess to civilmarriage forsamesex couples has anyadverseeffectontherealityorthesocialperceptionofthe institution of marriage as the optimal setting forthe raising of children. To the contrary, ending theexclusion of samesex couples from civil marriagerights would be a clear endorsement of the multiplebenefits of marriage—including stability, lifetime

commitment,andfinancialsupportduringcrisisandoldage—and a reaffirmation of the social value of thisinstitutionforallcommittedcouplesandtheirfamilies.7

Marriagehasundoubtedlyfaced seriouschallengesover the last few decades, as demonstrated by highdivorceratesandthegreaterincidenceofchildbearingand childrearingoutsideofmarriage. Yet thereisnoevidence to suggest that allowing committed samesexcouples to marry has exacerbated or will in any wayaccelerate those trends, which have their origins in

complexsocialforces. See,e.g.,Kitchen v.Herbert,755F.3d1193,1223(10thCir.)(“Weemphaticallyagreewiththe numerous cases decided since Windsor that it iswholly illogical tobelieve that state recognition of thelove and commitment between samesex couples willalter the most intimate and personal decisions of

7Aruling thatmarriagebansareconsistentwith the Four-

teenthAmendmentwouldgravelyunsettlethelivesofthousandsofsamesexcoupleswhohavemarriedinStateswherebanshavebeenstruckdownasunconstitutional.Introducingthatuncertain-

ty into these couples’ marriages, and into their families’ lives,wouldbetheantithesisofreaffirmingthevaluesofstability,struc-ture,andmutualsupportthatunderlieamici’scommitmenttotheinstitutionofcivilmarriage.


28/68

18

oppositesex couples.”), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 265(2014);Love,989F.Supp.2dat548(“Excludingsamesexcouplesfrommarriagedoesnotchangethenumberofheterosexualcoupleswhochoosetogetmarried,thenumberwhochoosetohavechildren,orthenumberofchildrentheyhave.”).Ifanything,thewaytopreserveandpromotetheinstitutionofcivilmarriagewouldbetoencourage more couples to marry, not to exclude thisentire category of American citizens from what thisCourthascalled“afarreachinglegalacknowledgementof the intimate relationship between two people.”

Windsor ,133S.Ct.at2692. Suchexclusionsimplylimitsthe number of Americans who may marry and whosechildrenandfamiliesmaybenefitfromtheinstitutionofcivilmarriage.

Amici submit that this observation hasonly beenfurther empirically vindicated in the two years sinceWindsor . TheexperienceinStatesinwhichsamesexcouplesarenolongerexcludedfromcivilmarriagehasmade abundantly clear that marriage serves as avaluable and foundational institution for samesex

couples and oppositesex couples alike. Evidence hasalsoreinforcedthatmoreharmisdonetoachildcentricmarriage culture from depriving samesex couples incommitted relationships—and their children—of therightsandresponsibilitiesofcivilmarriage,thanfromopeningcivilmarriagetothem.Amicicannotimagineamore vivid illustration of this than Petitioners AprilDeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two nurses who seek tomarrysothattheymayjointlyadoptthethreechildrentheyhavebroughtintotheirfamily,eachofwhomhadbeen born into anenvironmentthat presented special

challenges,includingprenataldrugabuse.Endingtheexclusionof this family from civilmarriage, and fromthe joint adoption opportunity attendant to it, would


29/68

19

ensurethateachofthesethreechildrencouldhavetwolegal parents rather than one, and that both parentscouldmakecriticaldecisionsrelatedtothehealthandwelfare of their children. Rather than reinforce thisbond between marriage and childrearing—and thebond between this couple and the children they havecommitted to raise—Michigan’s exclusionary lawsundersit,tothedetrimentofboththisfamilyandtheinstitutionofcivilmarriage.

Child Welfare. If there were any persuasiveevidence that the civilmarriagesof samesex couples

weredetrimentaltochildren,amiciwouldgiveitgreatweight. But there is not. As amici have come torecognize, and as this Court made clear in Windsor ,child welfare is imperiled, not advanced,byexcludingsamesexparentsraisingchildrenfromcivilmarriage.

First and foremost, legally differentiating theirparents“humiliates”thosechildrennowbeingraisedbysamesex couples. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Inaddition,governmentalbansoncivilmarriagerightsforsamesex couples threaten their children’s financial

securityand the stability oftheirentire families. See,e.g., DeBoer , 973 F. Supp. 2d at 764 (finding that“children being raised by samesex couples have onlyonelegalparentandareatriskofbeingplacedin‘legallimbo’ifthatparentdiesorisincapacitated.Denyingsamesexcouples the ability tomarry therefore has amanifestly harmful and destabilizing effect on suchcouples’children.”);seealsoWindsor ,133S.Ct.at2694-2695(relyinguponalaw’s“financialharmtochildrenofsamesexcouples”andplacementof“samesexcouplesin an unstable position” in declaring the law

unconstitutional). Rather than disagree, the court ofappeals in these cases further enumerated harms,writing that the marriage bans at issue “deprive[]


30/68

20

[samesexcouples]ofbenefitsthatrangefromtheproprofound(the righttovisitsomeone inahospitalasaspouseorparent)tothemundane(therighttofilejointtax returns). Theseharms affectnotonlygay couplesbut also their children.” DeBoer v. Snyder , 772 F.3d388,407408(6thCir.2014).

In contrast to the clear evidence of harm tochildren from laws excluding samesex couples fromcivilmarriage,thereisnogroundinginfactsorrealitytoconcludethatsuchexclusionsupportsorfurtherstheinterests of children. Social scientists have

resoundinglyrejectedtheclaimthatchildrenraisedbysamesex parents fare worse than children raised byother couples. Empirical research “gathered duringseveral decades” shows “no systemic difference”betweenthechildrearingcapabilitiesofsamesexandheterosexual parents, but rather that the sexualorientationofachild’sparenthasnomeasurableeffecton the child’s wellbeing. Perrin et al., TechnicalReport: Coparent or SecondParent Adoption bySameSex Parents, 109 Pediatrics 341, 343 (2002)

(finding no differences regarding “emotional health,parenting skills, and attitude towards parenting”betweensamesexandotherparents,and findingthat“[n]o data have pointed to any risk to children as aresult of growing up in a family with 1 or more gayparents”); see also Farr et al., Parenting and ChildDevelopment in Adoptive Families: Does ParentalSexualOrientationMatter? ,14AppliedDevelopmentalSci.164,175(2010)(findingchildrenadoptedbysamesexparentstobe“aswelladjustedasthoseadoptedbyheterosexual parents” and that there were “no

significant differences” between samesex andheterosexual parents “in terms of child adjustment,


31/68

21

parenting behaviors, or couples’ adjustment”).

8

T h e courtofappealsinthesecasesreadilyagreed:“[G]aycouples, no less than straight couples, are capable ofraisingchildrenandprovidingstablefamiliesforthem.The qualityof such relationships, and the capacity toraise children within them, turns not on sexualorientation but on individual choices and individualcommitment.”DeBoer ,772F.3dat405.

Scientific conclusions about the lack of harm tochildrenraisedinsamesexhouseholdshaveonlybeenfurther vindicated. For instance, recent longitudinal

studies of households with samesex parents havefoundthatthechildrenofthesefamiliesfaredaswellastheir peerswith heterosexual parentsonmeasures ofpsychological wellbeing.9 In the adoption context, a2013studyofchildrenadoptedintofamilieswithsamesex and oppositesex parents found that “[c]hildren’sadjustment outcomes did notdifferby family type.”10

Anda2012studyfoundthathighriskchildrenadopted

8Courtsthathaveexaminedtheevidencehaveunanimously

agreed.See,e.g.,DeBoer ,973F.Supp.2dat768;Hamby,2014WL5089399,at*11&n.99; Perry,704F.Supp.2dat980.Assertionstothecontraryhavebeenexposedasunsupported,biased,orboth.See,e.g.,DeBoer ,973F.Supp.2dat766768(explaininghowMich-iganrelieduponastudy“hastilyconcoctedatthebehestofathirdparty funder … [who] clearly wanted a certain result and [thestudy’sauthor]obliged,”aswellasstudiesthatweremethodologi-callyunsound).

9E.g., van Gelderen et al., Quality of Life of Adolescents

RaisedFromBirthbyLesbianMothers:TheUSNationalLongi-tudinalFamily Study, 33J. Developmental& Behav. Pediatrics17(2012).

10Goldberg&Smith,PredictorsofPsychologicalAdjustment

inEarlyPlacedAdoptedChildrenWithLesbian,Gay,andHeter-osexualParents,27J.FamilyPsychol.431,431(2013).


32/68

22

from foster care did at least equally well whetheradoptedbyoppositesexorsamesexparents,“despitegay and lesbian parents raising children with higherlevels of biological and environmental risks prior toadoptiveplacement.”11

Biology. Thereisalsonobiologicaljustificationfordenying civilmarriagetosamesexcouples. Allowingsamesex couples tomarry innoway undermines theimportance of marriage for oppositesex couples whoenterintomarriagetoprovideastablefamilystructurefor their children. Indeed, there is no evidence that

marriage between individuals of the same sexaffectsoppositesex couples’ decisions about procreation,marriage, divorce, or parenting whatsoever. Cf.Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 188 (2d Cir.2012) (lawsburdeningsamesex couples’ right to civilmarriage“do[]notprovideanyincrementalreasonforoppositesex couples to engage in ‘responsibleprocreation’”),aff’d,133S.Ct.2675(2013).

Moreover,oursocietyhaslongrecognizedthatcivilmarriage also protects and benefits couples who are

unable, or who choose not, to bear children. Manymarried couples adopt children and thus value thechildprotectiveinstitutionofmarriage.Othersmarryafterchildbearingagebutstillbenefitfromthewebofrights and obligations conferred by marriage. Inparticular, marriage facilitates the opportunity andabilityofmembersofcouplestosupporteachother,aswellastheirvulnerablerelativesandfellowcommunitymembersofanyage,andtherebytoavoidrelianceupongovernmentassistanceand intervention. SeeWindsor ,

11Lavner et al., Can Gay and Lesbian Parents Promote

HealthyDevelopmentinHighRiskChildrenAdoptedFromFos-terCare?,82Am.J.Orthopsychiatry465,465(2012).


33/68

23

133 S. Ct. at 2695 (noting that “it is expected thatspouseswillsupporteachother”as“anessentialpartofmarried life”); Choper & Yoo, supra, at 3334.Whatever the merits behind the speculation thatmarriage was originally fashionedonly to channel theprocreative impulse, it has been centuries sincemarriagewassolimited(ifiteverwas).OurNation’sfirst Presidentandhis wife had no children together,but their marriage provided a protective familystructureforraisingMarthaWashington’schildrenbyherfirstmarriageaswellashergrandchildren,andfor

thePresidentandMarthaWashingtonthemselves. SeeChernow,Washington:ALife7883,421422(2010).

In the present day, hundreds of thousands ofchildrenareinfactbeingraisedinlovingfamilieswithparents of the same sex. The last few decades havedemonstrated that many samesex couples stronglywishtoraisechildrenandaredoingso;thisisasocialdevelopment that will not bereversed,butwill likelyonly accelerate. Because amici believe that havingmarried parents isoptimal forchildren,theyconclude

that granting the rights and responsibilities of civilmarriage and its recognition to samesex couples willprotect,notharm,theirchildren,aswellasthemanychildrenwhowillberaisedbysamesexcouplesinthefuture. Andthesechildrenarenolessdeservingthanothers of those protections. Indeed, it is amici’s“fervent hope that these children will grow up ‘tounderstand the integrity and closeness of their ownfamily and its concord with other families in theircommunity and in their daily lives.’” DeBoer , 973 F.Supp.2dat775(quotingWindsor ,133S.Ct.at2694).


34/68

24

B. Even If The Marriage Bans Were Based On

ConcernsFor Tradition And Caution InThe

Face Of Societal Change, That Does Not

SustainTheirConstitutionality

Thatgovernmentsmayhavelongtreatedsamesexcouples differently from oppositesex couples wherecivilmarriageisconcerneddoesnotbyitselfprovideapermissible justification for discriminatory laws likethe marriage bans at issue here. The rule that aclassification must find support ina legitimate factual justification—not simply in its historical pedigree—is

centraltoourconstitutionaltradition.

This Court’s gender discrimination cases, inparticular, make clear that formerly widespreadtraditional views alone cannot justify a discriminatorylawundereventhemostpermissivestandardofreview.Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7, 1415 (1975) (“oldnotions” and “roletyping” did not supply a rationalbasisforclassification);seealsoCraigv.Boren,429U.S.190, 198199 (1976) (rejecting “increasingly outdatedmisconceptions” as “loosefitting characterizations

incapable of supporting state statutory schemes thatwere premised upon theiraccuracy”). This Courthasnot hesitated to reconsider a law’s outmoded justifications and, where appropriate, to deem theminsufficient to survive an equal protection challenge.See, e.g., Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 52(1980) (rejecting basis for law discriminating basedonsexbecauseits“ancientfoundations…havelongsincedisappeared” as “[c]hip by chip, over the years thosearchaic notions [of women’s roles] have been castaside”); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 537 (1975)

(“Ifitwaseverthecasethatwomenwereunqualifiedtosit on juries or were so situated that none of themshould be required to perform jury service, that time


35/68

25

haslongsincepassed.”).Thegovernmentalbansatisissue here rest on similarly ungrounded, archaic, andobsolete beliefs—however sincerely, strongly, or longheld—and thus the Fourteenth Amendment requiresrecognitionofthebans’invalidity.

ThisCourthaslongmadeclearthat,whenpersonalliberty isatstake,theConstitutioncannotcontinuetoenshrine previously unexamined societal assumptionsonce new facts and information come to light. SeePalmore v. Sidoti,466U.S. 429, 434(1984) (reversingcourtofappeals’decisionthatachildcouldberemoved

from the mother’s custody because the mother hadenteredintoaninterracialmarriage); Brownv.Boardof Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 492494 (1954) (“[W]e cannotturntheclockbackto…1896whenPlessyv.Fergusonwaswritten…. Whatevermayhavebeentheextentofpsychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v.Ferguson,thisfinding[thatracialsegregationdenotesinferiority]isamplysupportedbymodernauthority.”).

Courts in cases like these have thus rejected thebareinvocationoftraditionasasufficientrationalbasis

for precluding samesex couples from access to civilmarriage. SeeDeBoer ,973F.Supp.2dat772(“‘Thebasic guaranteesof ourConstitutionarewarrants forthe here and now’”); Bourke, 996 F. Supp. 2d at 552(holding that tradition cannot alone justifyinfringement of individual liberties); Golinski, 824 F.Supp.2dat998(“[T]heargumentthatthedefinitionofmarriage should remain the same for the definition’ssake is a circular argument, not a rational justification.”); Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 998 (“[T]hestatemusthaveaninterestapartfromthefactofthe

traditionitself.”).


36/68

26

Althoughamicifirmlybelievethatbeneficialinsti-institutionslikemarriageshouldnotbechangedlightly,embracing marriage for samesex couples would notchangetheinstitutionofmarriage;itwouldstrengthenthat institution. Moreover, amici do not believe thatcourts are bound to disregard facts when consideringoutmoded and injurious laws that stand against anyrectifyingchange.See2Burke,TheWorksoftheRightHonourable Edmund Burke 295 (Bell ed. 1892) (“Astatewithoutthemeansofsomechangeiswithoutthemeans of its conservation.”). Our Nation has

undergone toomanychanges forthebetteralready—especially in its repudiation of discrimination againstminorities—to allow social policy to be dictated byunexamined hypotheses undermined by evidence.Thus, a law cannot be sustained when it no longerreflects the “realities of the subject” that lawaddresses. Heller ,509U.S.at321;seealsoid.at326(“Ancient lineage of a legal concept does not give itimmunity from attack for lacking a rational basis.”);Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 239 (1970)(“[N]either the antiquity of a practice nor the factof

steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to itthrough the centuries insulates it from constitutionalattack[.]”). Itis the traditionalvalues servedby civilmarriage—responsibility, fidelity, commitment, andstability, among others—that amici believe justify itsequal availability under law. Those values would beservedbyending governmentalexclusion ofsamesexcouples from the institution of civil marriage, not byperpetuatingit.12

12

Tobesure,someAmericansholddeepseatedreligiousob- jectionstosamesexcouplesmarrying. But amicido not believethatcivilmarriagerightscanorneedbewithheldfromsamesexcouples for fear that the religiousfreedom ofthe faithfulwillbe


37/68

27

Thus,amiciviewthecourtofappeals’invocationsof“[a] Burkean sense of caution” and a “waitandseeapproach,”DeBoer ,772F.3dat406,409,asmisplaced.The laws at issue here are anything but cautious, astheyenactpermanentgovernmentexclusionsofsamesexcouplesfromcivilmarriage—exclusionsthatare,inmany instances, enshrinedagainst ordinary legislativerevision. Thatverylackofcautionismadeclearbythefact that none of the governments has grounded itspurported caution in anything more than speculationthat unspecified adverse consequences could result.

This Court does not treat caution, by itself, as asufficient justificationto deny individualsequal accessto fundamental rights. See, e.g., Watson v. City ofMemphis, 373 U.S. 526, 535536 (1963) (rejecting agovernment’s purported interest in proceeding with“gradual” change); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385,392 (1969) (rejecting a government “decision to moveslowlyinthedelicatearea”). And,asgovernments“canpleadan interest inproceeding withcaution inalmostanysetting,”Kitchenv.Herbert,961F.Supp.2d1181,1213 (D. Utah 2013), treating such an interest as

sufficient to sustain otherwise discriminatory lawswould render this Court’s review a nullity. Such aresult is untenable; as this Court recently confirmed,evenagovernment’sdesiretoavailitselfofthebenefitof StatebyState experimentation “may not deny the

infringed. Asdiscussedsupra note3,theFirstAmendmentandanalogousStatelawsprovideampleprotectionforexpressionsofdiverging viewsonthe subject. And amicisee noreason why adecisionfromthisCourtholdingthattheFourteenthAmendmentrequiresStategovernmentstosolemnizeandrecognizemarriages

betweensamesexcouplesshouldinanywayprejudicetherightsofthe faithfulto voicetheir opinionson the subject,nor requirethem to participate in or otherwise endorse civil marriages forsamesexcouplesbasedontheirsincerelyheldreligiousbeliefs.


38/68

28

basicdignitytheConstitutionprotects.”Hallv.FloriFlorida, 134 S. Ct. 1986, 2001 (2014). Indeed, “theenshrinementofconstitutionalrightsnecessarily takescertain policy choices off the table.” District ofColumbiav.Heller ,554U.S.570,636(2008). Thechoiceto enact a law that deprives committed samesexcouples and their children of the rights andresponsibilitiesofcivilmarriageisoneofthose.

III. T

HIS

C

OURT

S

HOULD

E

NSURE

T

HAT

G

OVERNMENTS

D

O

N

OT

D

ENY

T

HE

R

IGHTS

A

ND

R

ESPONSIBILITIES

O

F

C

IVIL

M

ARRIAGE

T

O

S

AME

-S

EX

C

OUPLES

Amicirecognizetheadmirable commitment ofour judiciary to exercise restraint whenconfronted withaprovision duly enacted by the people or theirrepresentatives. But “deference does not implyabandonmentorabdicationofjudicialreview.”MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003). Stategovernments do not have “unfettered discretion todefinethefullscopeoftheconstitutionalprotection”incases concerning individual rights and dignity. Hall,134S.Ct.at1998. Instead, itisthecourts’roletoset

aside laws that overstep the limits imposed by theConstitution—these limits reflect a different kind ofrestraint, which thepeoplewisely imposed to protectsegments of the population from deprivation of theirlibertieswithoutalegitimatebasis.AsMadisonputit,

InourGovernmentstherealpowerliesinthemajorityoftheCommunity,andtheinvasionofprivaterightsischieflytobeapprehended,notfromactsofGovernmentcontrarytothesenseof its constituents,butfrom acts inwhichthe

Government is the mere instrument of themajornumberoftheConstituents.


39/68

29

5 The Writings of James Madison: 17871790, at 272(Hunted.,1904). Likewise,whileit is thedutyofthepolitical branches of government “in the first andprimary instance” “to preserve and protect theConstitution,”thejudiciarymustnot“admitinabilitytointervenewhen oneor theother levelofGovernmenthastippedthescalestoofar.” UnitedStatesv.Lopez,514U.S.549,577578(1995)(Kennedy,J.,concurring).

ThisCourthasrepeatedlymadeclearthatalthoughlegislators and voters may generally exercise powerover certain subjects—including many contentious

social issues—the government’spower is limitedwhenit comes to injurious incursions upon the freedom ofminorities. See, e.g., Schuette v. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623, 16361637 (2014)(plurality opinion) (emphasizing that the Constitutionrequires redress by the courts when “theencouragement or command of laws or other stateaction”inflicts“hurtorinjury”onminorities);Lucasv.FortyFourthGen.AssemblyofColo.,377U.S.713,736-737(1964)(“Acitizen’sconstitutionalrightscanhardly

be infringed simply because a majority of the peoplechoosethatitbe.”).ThecourtofappealsmistookthisCourt’s teachings for a mandate to refrain from judgment even where it is individuals and theirfreedoms, not the democratic process, that are being“demean[ed].” Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2694 (placing“samesexcouplesinanunstableposition”andtreatingtheirrelationshipsas“secondtier”isa“differentiation[that]demeansthecouple”);seeDeBoer ,772F.3dat409(quotingSchuette,134S.Ct.at1637).

It is accordingly not a violation of principles of

judicialrestraintforthisCourttostrikedownlawsthatinfringe“fundamentalrightsnecessarytooursystemofordered liberty,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561


40/68

30

U.S.742,778(2010),particularlywheretheyinflict“re-“realandspecificinjury,” Schuette,134S.Ct.at1631,16361638. It is instead a key protection of limited,constitutionally constrained government. SeeFederalistNo.78,at524(Hamilton)(Cookeed.,1961)(“[A] limited constitution … can be preserved inpracticenootherwaythanthroughthemediumofthecourts ofjustice; whose dutyit must beto declare allactscontrarytothemanifesttenoroftheconstitutionvoid.”); see also Madison, Speech in Congress on theRemoval Power (June 8, 1789), in 1 Annals of Cong.

448,457(Galesed.,1790)(“[I]ndependenttribunals…will be an impenetrable bulwark against everyassumption of power in the legislative or executive;theywillbenaturallyledtoresisteveryencroachmentupon rights expressly stipulated for in theconstitution[.]”).

The right to marry indisputably falls within thenarrow band of specially protected liberties that thisCourt ensures are protected from unwarrantedcurtailment. ThisCourt’sspecialsolicitudeformarriage

ismanifestinitsdecisionin Loving. There,thisCourthelda Stateban on interracialmarriage invalidundertheFourteenth Amendment, rejectingargumentsthatthe Court should not address an issue of exclusivelyState concern and that social science evidencedemonstrated that interracial marriage harmedchildren,ledtohigherdivorcerates,andweakenedthemaritalbond. SeeAppelleeBr.,Loving,388U.S.1(No.66395).13

13

ThisCourtstruckdownVirginia’sbanoninterracialmar-riageinLovingeventhoughStateswereactivelydebatingwheth-ertorepealortocontinueenforcingsuchlaws.388U.S.at6&n.5;seealsoid.at78. ThisCourt’sactiondid not improperlyshort-

http:///reader/full/66-395).13http:///reader/full/66-395).13http:///reader/full/66-395).13


41/68

31

Thebansatissueherehaverunafoulofourconsti-tutionalorderbysubmittingafundamentalrighttoleg-islativeorpopularreferendum. SeeCityofCleburnev.Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 448 (1985) (“It isplainthattheelectorateasawhole,whetherby refer-endumorotherwise,couldnotorder[government]ac-tion violative of theEqualProtectionClause, andthe[government] may not avoid the strictures of thatClausebydeferringtothewishesorobjectionsofsomefractionofthebodypolitic.”(citationomitted)); seealsoWestVirginiaStateBd.ofEduc. v.Barnette,319U.S.

624,638 (1943) (“The verypurposeofa Bill ofRightswastowithdrawcertainsubjectsfromthevicissitudesofpoliticalcontroversy,toplacethembeyondthereachofmajoritiesandofficialsandtoestablishthemaslegalprinciples to be appliedby the courts. One’s right tolife, liberty, and property, … and other fundamentalrights may not besubmitted tovote; they depend ontheoutcomeofnoelections.”).Thesecasesaccordinglypresent one of the rare instances in which judicialaction is necessary to prevent overreaching by theelectorate. When fundamental liberties are at stake,

personal “choices and assessments … are not for theGovernment to make,” Citizens United v. FEC, 558U.S.310,372(2010),andcourtsmuststepintopreventanyencroachmentuponindividualrights.

Our constitutional guarantees of freedom are nolessapartof our legal traditions than is the salutaryprinciple of judicial restraint, and this Court honorsthose traditions—as well as conservative principles—

circuitongoingdemocraticdevelopmentsinthesixteenStatesthatprohibitedinterracialmarriageatthetime,butratherfulfilledthisCourt’s responsibility to enforce the constitutional guarantee ofequalprotection.


42/68

32

whenitactstosecureconstitutionallyprotectedliber-liberties against government overreaching. Cf.Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative 1314(1960) (“The Conservative is the first to understandthatthepracticeoffreedomrequirestheestablishmentof order: it is impossible for one man to be free ifanotherisabletodenyhimtheexerciseofhisfreedom.… He knows that the utmost vigilanceand care arerequired to keep political power within its properbounds.”).

Thus,thisCourthasinvalidatedlawsinfringingthe

Second Amendment right to selfdefense and to beararms. Heller , 554 U.S. at 635. It has protected therightofalltoparticipateinpublicdebateonissuesofpublic concern. See First Nat’l Bank of Boston v.Bellotti,435U.S.765(1978);Buckleyv.Valeo,424U.S.1 (1976); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254(1964). It has voided application of a State law thatinterferedwiththefundamental“‘libertyofparents…to direct the upbringing and education of children.’”Wisconsin v. Yoder , 406 U.S. 205, 233 (1972). It has

protectedtherightsofreligiousgroupstoassembleinandusepublicfacilities. SeeLamb’sChapel v.CenterMorichesUnionFreeSch.Dist.,508U.S.384,395397(1993);Widmarv.Vincent,454U.S.263,276277(1981).Andtwo years ago, this Court reaffirmed that “Statelawsdefiningandregulatingmarriage,ofcourse,mustrespecttheconstitutionalrightsofpersons.”Windsor ,133S.Ct.at2691(citingLoving). Oursocietyismorefree because the Court has exercised its power anddutytoenforceandsupporttheConstitutioninsuchamanner. TheCourtshoulddosoagaininthesecases.


43/68

33

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the court of appeals should bereversed.

SEANR.GALLAGHERSTACYA.CARPENTERBENNETTL.COHENPOLSINELLIPC1515WynkoopStreet

Suite600Denver,CO80202

MARKC.FLEMINGFELICIAH.ELLSWORTHELISABETHM.OPPENHEIMERALLISONTRZOPWILMERCUTLERPICKERING

HALEANDDORRLLP60StateStreetBoston,MA02109

ALANE.SCHOENFELDWILMERCUTLERPICKERING

HALEANDDORRLLP7WorldTradeCenter250GreenwichStreetNewYork,NY10007

MARCH2015

Respectfullysubmitted.

REGINALD J.BROWNSETHP.WAXMAN

CounselofRecordPAULR.Q.WOLFSONDINAB.MISHRA

WILMERCUTLERPICKERINGHALEANDDORRLLP

1875PennsylvaniaAve.,NWWashington,DC20006(202)[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


44/68

APPENDIX


45/68

1a

LIST OF AMICI CURIAE

Kenneth B. Mehlman Chairman, Republican NationalCommittee, 20052007

Daniel J. Acciavatti Member of the Michigan Houseof Representatives, 32nd District, 20032008

Abe Adams Deputy Digital Director, RomneyRyan2012

Tim Adams Undersecretary of the Treasury for In-ternational Affairs, 20052007

Sarah Anderson Communications and Research Di-rector for the Michigan Republican Party, 20052007

Todd Anderson Chief of Staff to the RepublicanSpeaker of the Michigan House of Representatives,20012004

Gregory T. Angelo Executive Director, Log CabinRepublicans

Cliff S. Asness Businessman, Philanthropist, and Au-thor

David D. Aufhauser General Counsel, Department ofthe Treasury, 20012003

Joshua Baca National Coalitions Director, Romney forPresident 2012, and Former Congressional Staff Mem-ber to Representative Heather Wilson

Doug Badger Executive Director, Oregon BushCheney 2004, and Chief of Staff, U.S. Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn

John Bailey Policy Director, BushCheney 2004, and

Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy,20072009


46/68

2a

Charlie Baker Governor of Massachusetts, 2015-Present

Melissa Hall Davis Balough Energy and Environ-ment Policy Director, Romney for President, 20072008

Lyn Bankes Member of the Michigan House of Repre-sentatives, 19th District, 19851998

William E. “Bill” Baroni Jr. New Jersey State As-semblyman, 20042008, New Jersey State Senator,20082010, and Of Counsel at Hill Wallack LLP

Michael James Barton Deputy Director of the MiddleEast Policy Office, Pentagon, 20062009, and HomelandSecurity Council Member, White House, 20032006

Charles Bass Member of Congress, 19952007 and20112013

Glynda A. Becker Associate Director, White HouseOffice of Political Affairs, 20032006, and Environmen-tal and Energy Specialist, U.S. Department of Com-merce, 20022003

Rich Beeson Political Director, Romney for President,

20112012, Political Director, Republican NationalCommittee, 20072008

John B. Bellinger III Legal Adviser to the Depart-ment of State, 20052009

Troy Benavidez Presidential Advisory Council onHIV AIDs, 20062009

Crystal Benton Former Press Secretary to Senator John McCain and Deputy Communications Director for John McCain for President, 2008

Juliana Bergeron New Hampshire Republican Na-tional Committeewoman, 2012Present


47/68

3a

Elliot S. Berke Counsel, Office of the Speaker, 2006,General Counsel, Office of the Majority Leader, 2004-2006, and Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Housing& Urban Development, 20022004

Jeff Berkowitz Research Director, Republican Na-tional Committee, 20092010, and White House Associ-ate Director of SchedulingResearch, 20052006

Jon Berrier Communications and Political Affairs Co-ordinator, The White House, Office of the Vice Presi-dent, 20052006

Michael Beylkin Attorney at Law, Colorado

Katie Biber General Counsel, Romney for President,20072008 and 20112012

David E. Black National Finance Team, Huntsman forPresident, 20112012, and Press Advance Lead, Rom-ney for President, 2012

Dan G. Blair Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Person-nel Management, 20022006 (Acting Director, 2005),and Commissioner, Postal Regulatory Commission,

20062011 (Chair, 20062009)Dan Blum Deputy Campaign Manager, Scott Walkerfor Governor, 20112012, and Senior Research Analyst,Republican National Committee, 20072009

Mary Bono, Member of Congress, 19982013

Tucker Bounds National Spokesman, John McCain forPresident, 2008

Pat Brady Chairman, Illinois GOP, 20092013

John M. Bridgeland Director, White House Domestic

Policy Council, 20012002, and Assistant to the Presi-dent and Director, U.S.A. Freedom Corps, 20022004


48/68

4a

Eric Brinker Businessman and PhilanthropistNancy Brinker Ambassador to Hungary, 20012003,and Chief of Protocol for the United States, 20072008

Neil R. Brown Senior Professional Staff Member, Re-publican Staff, United States Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee, 20052013

Bill Brownson National Board Chair, Log Cabin Re-publicans, 20032006

Brooks Brunson Special Assistant to the Chief of

Staff, House Republican Conference, 20032005Sean Cairncross Deputy Executive Director and Gen-eral Counsel, National Republican Senatorial Commit-tee, 20092013, and Chief Counsel, Republican NationalCommittee, 20072009

Sally Canfield Policy Director, Romney for President,20062008, and Deputy Chief of Staff, Senator MarcoRubio, 20112015

Alex Castellanos, Republican Media Advisor

Dan Centinello Deputy National Political Director,Mitt Romney for President, 20112012, and StatewideField Director, Chris Christie for Governor, 2009

David C. Chavern Business Association Executive

Mary Cheney, Director of Vice Presidential Opera-tions, BushCheney 2004, 20032004

Thomas J. Christensen Deputy Assistant Secretaryof State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 20062008

Jim Cicconi, Assistant to the President and Deputy tothe Chief of Staff, 19891990


49/68

5a

Harry W. Clark Counselor to Ambassador Robert B.Zoellick and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representa-tive, 20032004, and Senior Adviser to the AlbrightStonebridge Group

Gus Coldebella Acting General Counsel, U.S. De-partment of Homeland Security, 20072009, and DeputyGeneral Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Secu-rity, 20052007

Susan M. Collins U.S. Senator for Maine, 1997-Present

Jeff Cook-McCormac Philanthropic and Political Ad-visor

R. Clarke Cooper U.S. Alternative Representative,United Nations Security Council, 20072009

Mike Cox Attorney General of Michigan, 20032011

Sara Craig Iowa State Director, Romney for Presi-dent, 20112012, and Virginia State Manager, Romneyfor President, 2012

Julie Cram Deputy Assistant to the President and Di-

rector of the White House Office of Public Liaison,20072009

Tom Cross Illinois State Representative, 19932015,and Minority Leader of the Illinois House of Repre-sentatives, 20022013

S.E. Cupp Author and Political Commentator

Carlos Curbelo Member of Congress

Kevin Curran Associate Director of Presidential Per-sonnel, White House, 20062009

John C. Danforth United States Senator, 19761995,and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 20042005


50/68

6a

Michael P. Davidson BushCheney 2004, and NonProfit CEO, 2008Present

Michele Davis Assistant Secretary for Public Affairsand Director of Policy Planning, Department of theTreasury, 20062009

Tyler Deaton National Committeeman, New Hamp-shire Young Republicans, 2011Present

Vincent DeVito General Counsel, Massachusetts Re-publican Party, 20072013, Chief Legal Counsel, TheBaker Committee, 20132014, and Former U.S. Assis-

tant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs(Acting)

Bob Dold Member of Congress, 20112013 and 2015-Present

Ben Domenech Publisher of The Federalist, andSpeechwriter for Secretary Tommy Thompson, U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, 20032004

Alicia Davis Downs Associate Political Director,White House, 20012003

David Doyle Chairman, Michigan Republican Party,19911995

James C. Dozier Republican Political Strategist andAdvisor

Leon Drolet Member of Michigan House of Repre-sentatives, 20012006

Kenneth M. Duberstein White House Chief of Staff,19871989, and Assistant to the President, 19811984

Christine Dudley Executive Director, Illinois Repub-

lican Party, 19931999, Regional Political Director, Re-publican National Committee, 19992002, and Political,Public, and Government Affairs Consultant, 20022014


51/68

7a

Sean Duffy Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications,Colorado Governor Bill Owens, 20012005

Janet L. Duprey New York State Assemblywoman,2007Present

Christian J. Edwards Special Assistant to the Presi-dent and Director of Press Advance, 20052007

Mark J. Ellis State Chairman, Maine Republican Par-ty, 20052006 and 20072009

Jamie Ensley Chairman of the Board, Log Cabin Re-

publicans, 2015PresentRob Epplin Legislative Director, U.S. Senator SusanCollins, 20082012, and U.S. Senator Gordon Smith,19972008

Cary Evans Senior Field Advisor, Rudy Giuliani forPresident, 20072008, Regional Political Director, Re-publican National Committee, 20052007, and RegionalPolitical Director, BushCheney 2004, 20032004

Elizabeth Noyer Feld Public Affairs Specialist, WhiteHouse Office of Management and Budget, 19841986,

and Assistant to the Press Secretary for Vice PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush, 19861987

Mason Fink Finance Director, Romney for President,2012

Kirk Fordham Republican Congressional Chief ofStaff, 19952006

Carl Forti Deputy Campaign Manager and PoliticalDirector, Romney for President 20072008

Jill Hazelbaker Franks Communications Director,

John McCain for President, 20072008


52/68

8a

Edward J. Gaffney Jr. Esquire Member of MichiganHouse of Representatives, 20022008

Kathryn E. Gage Deputy Campaign Manager, Rom-ney for President 2012

Reed Galen Director of Scheduling and Advance,BushCheney 2004, 20032004

Richard Galen Communications Director, Speaker’sPolitical Office, 19961997

Jenny Gaynor Deputy Chief of Staff, Republican Na-

tional Committee, 20052007, and Director of Corre-spondence, BushCheney 2004

William C. T. Gaynor II Associate Director Office ofBusiness Liaison, Department of Commerce, 20012003,and Western Regional Finance Director, BushCheney2004

Mark Gerson Chairman, Gerson Lehrman Group andAuthor of The Neoconservative Vision: From the ColdWar to the Culture Wars and In the Classroom: Dis- patches from an InnerCity School that Works

Chris Gibson Member of Congress, 2011Present

Josh Ginsberg National Field Director, Romney forPresident, 20072008

Rudolph W. Giuliani Mayor of the City of New York,19942001, United States Attorney, Southern Districtof New York, 19831989, and Associate Attorney Gen-eral of the United States, 19811983

James K. Glassman Undersecretary of State for Pub-lic Diplomacy and Public Affairs, 20082009

Chris Gober Deputy Counsel, Republican NationalCommittee, 20062007, and General Counsel, NationalRepublican Senatorial Committee, 20072008


53/68

9a

Patricia Godchaux Member of the Michigan House ofRepresentatives, 40th District, 19972002

Gabriel E. Gomez U.S. Senate Candidate, 2013

John Goodwin Chief of Staff to Raul Labrador, Mem-ber of Congress, 20112013

Adam Gordon Former Deputy District Attorney, SanDiego County District Attorney’s Office, 20092014

Jennifer Gratz Founder, XIV Foundation, and Execu-tive Director, Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

Adrian Gray Director of Strategy, Republican Na-tional Committee, 20052007

Richard Grenell Spokesman, U.S. Ambassadors to theUnited Nations, 20012008

Susan Grimes Gilbert Member of the Michigan Houseof Representatives, 19871996

Mark Grisanti New York State Senator, 20112014

Joseph A. Grundfest Commissioner, U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission, 19851990

Patrick Guerriero Mayor of Melrose, Massachusetts,and Member of Massachusetts House of Representa-tives, 19932001

Chris Gulugian-Taylor Director, Gubernatorial Cam-paigns and Statewide Organizations, Targeted Victory,2011Present

Carlos Gutierrez Secretary of Commerce, 20052009

Stephen Hadley Assistant to the President and Na-tional Security Advisor, 20052009

Brian Haley Deputy Finance Director, John McCainfor President, 2008, and Finance Director, TimPawlenty for President, 2012


54/68

10a

Richard L. Hanna Member of Congress, 2011PresentJon Henke New Media Advisor, Senate RepublicanLeadership Communications Office, 2007

Jerri Ann Henry Campaign Manager, Young Con-servatives for the Freedom to Marry, 2015

Israel Hernandez Assistant Secretary of Commercefor International Trade, 20052009

David G. Herro Businessman and Philanthropist

Dawson Hodgson Member, Rhode Island Senate,

20112015

Rachel Hoff Director of Defense Analysis, AmericanAction Forum, 2015, and D.C. National Committee-woman, Young Republicans, 20062009

Douglas Holtz-Eakin Director, Congressional BudgetOffice, 20032005

Dave Honigman Former Member of the MichiganSenate, and Former Member of the Michigan House ofRepresentatives

Margaret Hoover Advisor to the Deputy Secretary ofHomeland Security, 20052006

Michael Huffington Member of Congress, 19931995

Abby Huntsman Political Commentator

Jon Huntsman Governor of Utah, 20052009, DeputyAssistant Secretary of Commerce, 19891992, U.S. Am-bassador to Singapore, 19921993, U.S. Trade Ambas-sador, 20012003, and U.S. Ambassador to China, 2009-2011

Bob Inglis U.S. Representative, South Carolina, 1993-1999 and 20052011


55/68

11a

Susan Jandernoa, Board Member Appointee, State ofMichigan Health Endowment

Michael Jandernoa Board Member, Business Leadersfor Michigan

David A. Javdan General Counsel, U.S. Small Busi-ness Administration, 20022006

Reuben Jeffery Undersecretary of State for Econom-ic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs, 20072009

Coddy Johnson National Field Director, BushCheney

2004, White House Office of Political Affairs, and Re-gional Director BushCheney 2000

Gary Johnson Governor of New Mexico, 19952003,and Libertarian Party Nominee for President, 2012

Nancy L. Johnson Member of Congress, 19832007

Rick Johnson Former Member of the Michigan Houseof Representatives, and Former Speaker of the Michi-gan House of Representatives, 20012004

Brian Jones Senior Advisor, Romney for President,2012, and Communications Director, McCain for Presi-dent, 2008

Brian W. Jones General Counsel, U.S. Department ofEducation, 20012005

Jennifer Jones Republican Strategist

Elise Jordan Director for Communications, NationalSecurity Council, 20072008

Robert Kabel Special Assistant to the President forLegislative Aff

Documents

14-556 Kenneth B Mehlman