4th circuit - virginia opinion

8/12/2019 4th Circuit - Virginia Opinion

1/98

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

No. 14-1167

TI MOTHY B. BOSTI C; TONY C. LONDON; CAROL SCHALL; MARYTOWNLEY,

Plaintiffs Appellees,

J OANNE HARRI S; J ESSI CA DUFF; CHRI STY BERGHOFF; VI CTORI AKI DD, on behal f of t hemsel ves and al l ot her s si mi l ar l ysi t uat ed,

I nt er venor s,

v.

GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, I I I , i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as t heCl er k of Cour t f or Nor f ol k Ci r cui t Cour t ,

Def endant Appel l ant ,

and

J ANET M. RAI NEY, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as St at e Regi st r arof Vi t al Recor ds; ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, i n hi s of f i ci alcapaci t y as Gover nor of Vi r gi ni a; KENNETH T. CUCCI NELLI , I I ,i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as At t or ney Gener al of Vi r gi ni a,

Def endant s,

MI CHLE MCQUI GG,

I nt er venor / Def endant .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DAVI D A. ROBI NSON; ALAN J . HAWKI NS; J ASON S. CARROLL; NORTHCAROLI NA VALUES COALI TI ON; LI BERTY, LI FE, AND LAWFOUNDATI ON; SOCI AL SCI ENCE PROFESSORS; FAMI LY RESEARCHCOUNCI L; VI RGI NI A CATHOLI C CONFERENCE, LLC; CENTER FORCONSTI TUTI ONAL J URI SPRUDENCE; STATE OF WEST VI RGI NI A;

Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 1 of 98


2/98

2

I NSTI TUTE FOR MARRI AGE AND PUBLI C POLI CY; HELEN M. ALVARE;STATE OF I NDI ANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATEOF ARI ZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF I DAHO; STATE OFLOUI SI ANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OFOKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLI NA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;

STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMI NG; WALLBUI LDERS, LLC; LI BERTYCOUNSEL; AMERI CAN COLLEGE OF PEDI ATRI CI ANS; SCHOLARS OFHI STORY AND RELATED DI SCI PLI NES; AMERI CAN LEADERSHI P FUND;ROBERT P. GEORGE; SHERI F GI RGI S; RYAN T. ANDERSON; PAULMCHUGH; UNI TED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLI C BI SHOPS;NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF EVANGELI CALS; CHURCH OF J ESUS CHRI STOF LATTERDAY SAINTS; THE ETHI CS & RELI GI OUS LI BERTYCOMMI SSI ON OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTI ST CONVENTI ON; LUTHERANCHURCHMISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS

LI BERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATI ON AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVI DBOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERI CA; THEFAMI LY FOUNDATI ON OF VI RGI NI A,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ant ,

CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEEBOLLI NGER; ERWI N CHEMERI NSKY; WALTER DELLI NGER; MI CHAEL C.DORF; LEE EPSTEI N; DANI EL FARBER; BARRY FRI EDMAN; MI CHAELJ AY GERHARDT, Pr of essor ; DEBORAH HELLMAN; J OHN CALVI NJ EFFRI ES, J R. ; LAWRENCE LESSI G; WI LLI AM MARSHALL; FRANKMI CHELMAN; J ANE S. SCHACTER; CHRI STOPHER H. SCHROEDER;SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVI D STRAUSS; LAURENCEH. TRI BE, Pr of essor ; WI LLI AM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVESLDN; THE

AMERI CAN MI LI TARY PARTNER ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CANSOCI OLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; VI RGI NI A CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAWPROFESSORS; AMERI CAN PSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CANACADEMY OF PEDI ATRI CS; AMERI CAN PSYCHI ATRI C ASSOCI ATI ON;NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF SOCI AL WORKERS; VI RGI NI APSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; EQUALI TY NC; SOUTH CAROLI NAQUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHERBORNE; MARCI EFISHERBORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARI GNAN;MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLI E ZANAGLI O; LEE KNI GHTCAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAI G J OHNSON; ESMERALDAMEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTERMEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;

CONSTI TUTI ONAL ACCOUNTABI LI TY CENTER; HI STORI ANS OFMARRI AGE; PETER W. BARDAGLI O; NORMA BASCH; STEPHANI E COONTZ;NANCY F. COTT; TOBY L. DI TZ; ARI ELA R. DUBLER; LAURA F.EDWARDS; SARAH BARRI NGER GORDON; MI CHAEL GROSSBERG; HENDRI KHARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LI NDA K. KERBER; ALI CEKESSLERHARRIS; ELAINE TYLER MAY; SERENA MAYERI; STEVENMI NTZ; ELI ZABETH PLECK; CAROLE SHAMMAS; MARY L. SHANLEY; AMYDRU STANLEY; BARBARA WELKE; PARENTS, FAMI LI ES AND FRI ENDS OF



3/98

3

LESBI ANS AND GAYS, I NC. ; KERRY ABRAMS, Al ber t Cl ark Tat e,J r . Pr of essor of Law, Uni ver si t y of Vi r gi ni a School of Law;VI VI AN HAMI LTON, Pr of essor of Law, Wi l l i am and Mar y;MEREDI TH HARBACH, Pr of essor of Law, Uni versi t y of Ri chmond;J OAN HEI FETZ HOLLI NGER, J ohn and El i zabeth Boal t Lect urer i n

Resi dence, Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a, Ber kel ey School of Law;COURTNEY G. J OSLI N, Prof essor of Law, Uni ver si t y ofCal i f orni a, Davi s School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE ANDEDUCATI ON FUND, I NC. ; NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON FOR THEADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNI VERSI TY SCHOOL OFLAW CI VI L RI GHTS CLI NI C; FAMI LY EQUALI TY COUNCI L; COLAGE;GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSI ONALS ADVANCI NG LGBT EQUALI TY; WI LLI AMN. ESKRI DGE, J R. ; REBECCA L. BROWN; DANI EL A. FARBER;MI CHAEL GERHARDT; J ACK KNI GHT; ANDREW KOPPELMAN; MELI SSALAMB SAUNDERS; NEI L S. SI EGEL; J ANA B. SI NGER; HI STORI ANS OFANTIGAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS

UNI TED FOR SEPARATI ON OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: AJ EWI SH PARTNERSHI P FOR J USTI CE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN' SZI ONI ST ORGANI ZATI ON OF AMERI CA; HI NDU AMERI CAN FOUNDATI ON;THE I NTERFAI TH ALLI ANCE FOUNDATI ON; J APANESE AMERI CANCI TI ZENS LEAGUE; J EWI SH SOCI AL POLI CY ACTI ON NETWORK;KESHET; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCHES; MORE LI GHTPRESBYTERI ANS; THE NATI ONAL COUNCI L OF J EWI SH WOMEN;NEHI RI M; PEOPLE FOR THE AMERI CAN WAY FOUNDATI ON;PRESBYTERI AN WELCOME; RECONCI LI NGWORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULLPARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; SI KH AMERI CANLEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATI ON FUND; SOCI ETY FOR HUMANI STI CJ UDAI SM; T' RUAH: THE RABBI NI C CALL FOR HUMAN RI GHTS; WOMEN' S

LEAGUE FOR CONSERVATI VE J UDAI SM; COLUMBI A LAW SCHOOLSEXUALI TY AND GENDER LAW CLI NI C; BI SHOPS OF THE EPI SCOPALCHURCH I N VI RGI NI A; CENTRAL ATLANTI C CONFERENCE OF THEUNI TED CHURCH OF CHRI ST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERI CANRABBI S; MORMONS FOR EQUALI TY; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CALASSOCI ATI ON; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL COLLEGE AND J EWI SHRECONSTRUCTI ONI ST COMMUNI TI ES; UNI ON FOR REFORM J UDAI SM; THEUNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST ASSOCI ATI ON; AFFI RMATI ON; COVENANTNETWORK OF PRESBYTERI ANS; METHODI ST FEDERATI ON FOR SOCI ALACTI ON; MORE LI GHT PRESBYTERI ANS; PRESBYTERI AN WELCOME;RECONCI LI NG MI NI STRI ES NETWORK; RECONCI LI NGWORKS: LUTHERANS

FOR FULL PARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; WOMEN OFREFORM J UDAI SM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANI ZATI ONS REPRESENTI NGEMPLOYERS; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OFCALI FORNI A; STATE OF CONNECTI CUT; DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A;STATE OF I LLI NOI S; STATE OF I OWA; STATE OF MAI NE; STATE OFMARYLAND; STATE OF NEW HAMPSHI RE; STATE OF NEW MEXI CO; STATEOF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OFWASHI NGTON; GARY J . GATES; NATI ONAL AND WESTERN STATES



4/98

4

WOMEN' S RI GHTS ORGANI ZATI ONS; VI RGI NI A CHAPTER OF THEAMERI CAN ACADEMY OF MATRI MONI AL LAWYERS; THE NATI ONALWOMEN' S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RI GHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF WOMEN LAWYERS; NATI ONAL PARTNERSHI PFOR WOMEN & FAMI LI ES; SOUTHWEST WOMEN' S LAW CENTER; WOMEN' S

LAW PROJ ECT; PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCI ATED WI TH THE WI LLI AMSI NSTI TUTE; BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR I NDI VI DUAL FREEDOM;LEADERSHI P CONFERENCE ON CI VI L AND HUMAN RI GHTS; PUBLI CI NTEREST ORGANI ZATI ONS; BAR ASSOCI ATI ONS; FAMI LY LAW ANDCONFLI CT OF LAWS PROFESSORS; GAY AND LESBI AN ADVOCATES ANDDEFENDERS; PEOPLE OF FAI TH FOR EQUALI TY I N VI RGI NI A;CELEBRATI ON CENTER FOR SPI RI TUAL LI VI NG; CLARENDONPRESBYTERI AN CHURCH; COMMONWEALTH BAPTI ST CHURCH;CONGREGATI ON OR AMI ; HOPE UNI TED CHURCH OF CHRI ST; LI TTLERI VER UCC; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCH OF NORTHERNVI RGI NI A; MT. VERNON UNI TARI AN CHURCH; ST. J AMES UCC, ; ST.J OHN' S UCC; NEW LI FE METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCH;UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST FELLOWSHI P OF THE PENI NSULA;UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST CONGREGATI ON OF STERLI NG; UNI TEDCHURCH OF CHRI ST OF FREDERI CKSBURG; UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI STCHURCH OF LOUDOUN; ANDREW MERTZ; REV. MARI E HULM ADAM; REV.MARTY ANDERSON; REV ROBI N ANDERSON; REV. VERNE ARENS; RABBILI A BASS; REV. J OSEPH G. BEATTI E; REV. SUE BROWNI NG; REV.J I M BUNDY; REV. MARK BYRD; REV. STEVEN C. CLUNN; REV. DR.J OHN COPERHAVER; RABBI GARY CREDI TOR; REV. DAVI D ENSI GN;REV. HENRY FAI RMAN; RABBI J ESSE GALLOP; REV. TOMGERSTENLAUER; REV. ROBI N H. GORSLI NE; REV. TRI SH HALL; REV.WARREN HAMMONDS; REV. J ON HEASLET; REV. DOUGLAS HODGES; REV.

PHYLLI S HUBBELL; REV. STEPHEN G. HYDE; REV. J ANET J AMES;REV. J OHN MANWELL; REV. J AMES W. MCNEAL; REV. MARC BOSWELL;REV. ANDREW CLI VE MI LLARD; REV. DR. MELANI E MI LLER; REV.AMBER NEUROTH; REV. J AMES PAPI LE; REV. LI NDA OLSON PEEBLES;REV. DON PRANGE; RABBI MI CHAEL RAGOZI N; RABBI BEN ROMER;REV. JENNIFER RYU; REV. ANYA SAMMLERMICHAEL; REV. AMYSCHWARTZMAN; REV. DANNY SPEARS; REV. MARK SURI ANO; REV. ROBVAUGHN; REV. DANI EL VELEZRIVERA; REV. KATE R. WALKER; REV.TERRYE WILLIAMS; REV. DR. KARENMARIE YUST,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ees.



5/98

5

No. 14-1169




I nt er venor s,

v.

J ANET M. RAI NEY, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as St at e Regi st r arof Vi t al Recor ds,

Def endant Appel l ant ,

and

GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, I I I , i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as t heCl er k of Cour t f or Nor f ol k Ci r cui t Cour t ; ROBERT F.MCDONNELL, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Gover nor of Vi r gi ni a;

KENNETH T. CUCCI NELLI , I I , i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y asAt t or ney Gener al of Vi r gi ni a,

Def endant s,

MI CHLE MCQUI GG,

I nt er venor / Def endant .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DAVI D A. ROBI NSON; ALAN J . HAWKI NS; J ASON S. CARROLL; NORTHCAROLI NA VALUES COALI TI ON; LI BERTY, LI FE, AND LAWFOUNDATI ON; SOCI AL SCI ENCE PROFESSORS; FAMI LY RESEARCHCOUNCI L; VI RGI NI A CATHOLI C CONFERENCE, LLC; CENTER FORCONSTI TUTI ONAL J URI SPRUDENCE; STATE OF WEST VI RGI NI A;I NSTI TUTE FOR MARRI AGE AND PUBLI C POLI CY; HELEN M. ALVARE;STATE OF I NDI ANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATEOF ARI ZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF I DAHO; STATE OF



6/98

6

LOUI SI ANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OFOKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLI NA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMI NG; WALLBUI LDERS, LLC; LI BERTYCOUNSEL; AMERI CAN COLLEGE OF PEDI ATRI CI ANS; SCHOLARS OFHI STORY AND RELATED DI SCI PLI NES; AMERI CAN LEADERSHI P FUND;

ROBERT P. GEORGE; SHERI F GI RGI S; RYAN T. ANDERSON; PAULMCHUGH; UNI TED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLI C BI SHOPS;NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF EVANGELI CALS; CHURCH OF J ESUS CHRI STOF LATTERDAY SAINTS; THE ETHI CS & RELI GI OUS LI BERTYCOMMI SSI ON OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTI ST CONVENTI ON; LUTHERANCHURCHMISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS

LI BERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATI ON AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVI DBOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERI CA; THEFAMI LY FOUNDATI ON OF VI RGI NI A,


CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEEBOLLI NGER; ERWI N CHEMERI NSKY; WALTER DELLI NGER; MI CHAEL C.DORF; LEE EPSTEI N; DANI EL FARBER; BARRY FRI EDMAN; MI CHAELJ AY GERHARDT, Pr of essor ; DEBORAH HELLMAN; J OHN CALVI NJ EFFRI ES, J R. ; LAWRENCE LESSI G; WI LLI AM MARSHALL; FRANKMI CHELMAN; J ANE S. SCHACTER; CHRI STOPHER H. SCHROEDER;SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVI D STRAUSS; LAURENCEH. TRI BE, Pr of essor ; WI LLI AM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVESLDN; THEAMERI CAN MI LI TARY PARTNER ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CANSOCI OLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; VI RGI NI A CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAWPROFESSORS; AMERI CAN PSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CAN

ACADEMY OF PEDI ATRI CS; AMERI CAN PSYCHI ATRI C ASSOCI ATI ON;NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF SOCI AL WORKERS; VI RGI NI APSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; EQUALI TY NC; SOUTH CAROLI NAQUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHERBORNE; MARCI EFISHERBORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARIGNAN;

MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLI E ZANAGLI O; LEE KNI GHTCAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAI G J OHNSON; ESMERALDAMEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTERMEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;

CONSTI TUTI ONAL ACCOUNTABI LI TY CENTER; HI STORI ANS OFMARRI AGE; PETER W. BARDAGLI O; NORMA BASCH; STEPHANI E COONTZ;NANCY F. COTT; TOBY L. DI TZ; ARI ELA R. DUBLER; LAURA F.

EDWARDS; SARAH BARRI NGER GORDON; MI CHAEL GROSSBERG; HENDRI KHARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LI NDA K. KERBER; ALI CEKESSLERHARRIS; ELAINE TYLER MAY; SERENA MAYERI; STEVEN

MI NTZ; ELI ZABETH PLECK; CAROLE SHAMMAS; MARY L. SHANLEY; AMYDRU STANLEY; BARBARA WELKE; PARENTS, FAMI LI ES AND FRI ENDS OFLESBI ANS AND GAYS, I NC. ; KERRY ABRAMS, Al ber t Cl ark Tat e,J r . Pr of essor of Law, Uni ver si t y of Vi r gi ni a School of Law;VI VI AN HAMI LTON, Pr of essor of Law, Wi l l i am and Mar y;



7/98

7

MEREDI TH HARBACH, Pr of essor of Law, Uni versi t y of Ri chmond;J OAN HEI FETZ HOLLI NGER, J ohn and El i zabeth Boal t Lect urer i nResi dence, Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a, Ber kel ey School of Law;COURTNEY G. J OSLI N, Prof essor of Law, Uni ver si t y ofCal i f orni a, Davi s School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND

EDUCATI ON FUND, I NC. ; NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON FOR THEADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNI VERSI TY SCHOOL OFLAW CI VI L RI GHTS CLI NI C; FAMI LY EQUALI TY COUNCI L; COLAGE;GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSI ONALS ADVANCI NG LGBT EQUALI TY; WI LLI AMN. ESKRI DGE, J R. ; REBECCA L. BROWN; DANI EL A. FARBER;MI CHAEL GERHARDT; J ACK KNI GHT; ANDREW KOPPELMAN; MELI SSALAMB SAUNDERS; NEI L S. SI EGEL; J ANA B. SI NGER; HI STORI ANS OFANTIGAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS

UNI TED FOR SEPARATI ON OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: AJ EWI SH PARTNERSHI P FOR J USTI CE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN' SZI ONI ST ORGANI ZATI ON OF AMERI CA; HI NDU AMERI CAN FOUNDATI ON;THE I NTERFAI TH ALLI ANCE FOUNDATI ON; J APANESE AMERI CANCI TI ZENS LEAGUE; J EWI SH SOCI AL POLI CY ACTI ON NETWORK;KESHET; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCHES; MORE LI GHTPRESBYTERI ANS; THE NATI ONAL COUNCI L OF J EWI SH WOMEN;NEHI RI M; PEOPLE FOR THE AMERI CAN WAY FOUNDATI ON;PRESBYTERI AN WELCOME; RECONCI LI NGWORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULLPARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; SI KH AMERI CANLEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATI ON FUND; SOCI ETY FOR HUMANI STI CJ UDAI SM; T' RUAH: THE RABBI NI C CALL FOR HUMAN RI GHTS; WOMEN' SLEAGUE FOR CONSERVATI VE J UDAI SM; COLUMBI A LAW SCHOOLSEXUALI TY AND GENDER LAW CLI NI C; BI SHOPS OF THE EPI SCOPALCHURCH I N VI RGI NI A; CENTRAL ATLANTI C CONFERENCE OF THE

UNI TED CHURCH OF CHRI ST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERI CANRABBI S; MORMONS FOR EQUALI TY; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CALASSOCI ATI ON; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL COLLEGE AND J EWI SHRECONSTRUCTI ONI ST COMMUNI TI ES; UNI ON FOR REFORM J UDAI SM; THEUNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST ASSOCI ATI ON; AFFI RMATI ON; COVENANTNETWORK OF PRESBYTERI ANS; METHODI ST FEDERATI ON FOR SOCI ALACTI ON; MORE LI GHT PRESBYTERI ANS; PRESBYTERI AN WELCOME;RECONCI LI NG MI NI STRI ES NETWORK; RECONCI LI NGWORKS: LUTHERANSFOR FULL PARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; WOMEN OFREFORM J UDAI SM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANI ZATI ONS REPRESENTI NGEMPLOYERS; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF

CALI FORNI A; STATE OF CONNECTI CUT; DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A;STATE OF I LLI NOI S; STATE OF I OWA; STATE OF MAI NE; STATE OFMARYLAND; STATE OF NEW HAMPSHI RE; STATE OF NEW MEXI CO; STATEOF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OFWASHI NGTON; GARY J . GATES; NATI ONAL AND WESTERN STATESWOMEN' S RI GHTS ORGANI ZATI ONS; VI RGI NI A CHAPTER OF THEAMERI CAN ACADEMY OF MATRI MONI AL LAWYERS; THE NATI ONALWOMEN' S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RI GHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;



8/98


9/98

9

No. 14-1173




I nt er venor s,

v.

MI CHLE MCQUI GG,

I nt er venor / Def endant Appel l ant ,

and

GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, I I I , i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as t heCl er k of Cour t f or Nor f ol k Ci r cui t Cour t ; J ANET M. RAI NEY,i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as St at e Regi st r ar of Vi t alRecor ds; ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as

Gover nor of Vi r gi ni a; KENNETH T. CUCCI NELLI , I I , i n hi sof f i ci al capaci t y as At t or ney Gener al of Vi r gi ni a,

Def endant s.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DAVI D A. ROBI NSON; ALAN J . HAWKI NS; J ASON S. CARROLL; NORTHCAROLI NA VALUES COALI TI ON; LI BERTY, LI FE, AND LAWFOUNDATI ON; SOCI AL SCI ENCE PROFESSORS; FAMI LY RESEARCHCOUNCI L; VI RGI NI A CATHOLI C CONFERENCE, LLC; CENTER FOR

CONSTI TUTI ONAL J URI SPRUDENCE; STATE OF WEST VI RGI NI A;I NSTI TUTE FOR MARRI AGE AND PUBLI C POLI CY; HELEN M. ALVARE;STATE OF I NDI ANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATEOF ARI ZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF I DAHO; STATE OFLOUI SI ANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OFOKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLI NA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMI NG; WALLBUI LDERS, LLC; LI BERTYCOUNSEL; AMERI CAN COLLEGE OF PEDI ATRI CI ANS; SCHOLARS OF



10/98

10

HI STORY AND RELATED DI SCI PLI NES; AMERI CAN LEADERSHI P FUND;ROBERT P. GEORGE; SHERI F GI RGI S; RYAN T. ANDERSON; PAULMCHUGH; UNI TED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLI C BI SHOPS;NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF EVANGELI CALS; CHURCH OF J ESUS CHRI STOF LATTERDAY SAINTS; THE ETHI CS & RELI GI OUS LI BERTY

COMMI SSI ON OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTI ST CONVENTI ON; LUTHERANCHURCHMISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUSLI BERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATI ON AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVI DBOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERI CA; THEFAMI LY FOUNDATI ON OF VI RGI NI A,


CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEEBOLLI NGER; ERWI N CHEMERI NSKY; WALTER DELLI NGER; MI CHAEL C.DORF; LEE EPSTEI N; DANI EL FARBER; BARRY FRI EDMAN; MI CHAELJ AY GERHARDT, Pr of essor ; DEBORAH HELLMAN; J OHN CALVI NJ EFFRI ES, J R. ; LAWRENCE LESSI G; WI LLI AM MARSHALL; FRANKMI CHELMAN; J ANE S. SCHACTER; CHRI STOPHER H. SCHROEDER;SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVI D STRAUSS; LAURENCEH. TRI BE, Pr of essor ; WI LLI AM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVESLDN; THEAMERI CAN MI LI TARY PARTNER ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CANSOCI OLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; VI RGI NI A CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAWPROFESSORS; AMERI CAN PSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CANACADEMY OF PEDI ATRI CS; AMERI CAN PSYCHI ATRI C ASSOCI ATI ON;NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF SOCI AL WORKERS; VI RGI NI APSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; EQUALI TY NC; SOUTH CAROLI NAQUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHERBORNE; MARCI EFISHERBORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARIGNAN;MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLI E ZANAGLI O; LEE KNI GHTCAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAI G J OHNSON; ESMERALDAMEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTERMEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;

CONSTI TUTI ONAL ACCOUNTABI LI TY CENTER; HI STORI ANS OFMARRI AGE; PETER W. BARDAGLI O; NORMA BASCH; STEPHANI E COONTZ;NANCY F. COTT; TOBY L. DI TZ; ARI ELA R. DUBLER; LAURA F.EDWARDS; SARAH BARRI NGER GORDON; MI CHAEL GROSSBERG; HENDRI KHARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LI NDA K. KERBER; ALI CEKESSLERHARRIS; ELAINE TYLER MAY; SERENA MAYERI; STEVEN

MI NTZ; ELI ZABETH PLECK; CAROLE SHAMMAS; MARY L. SHANLEY; AMY

DRU STANLEY; BARBARA WELKE; PARENTS, FAMI LI ES AND FRI ENDS OFLESBI ANS AND GAYS, I NC. ; KERRY ABRAMS, Al ber t Cl ark Tat e,J r . Pr of essor of Law, Uni ver si t y of Vi r gi ni a School of Law;VI VI AN HAMI LTON, Pr of essor of Law, Wi l l i am and Mar y;MEREDI TH HARBACH, Pr of essor of Law, Uni versi t y of Ri chmond;J OAN HEI FETZ HOLLI NGER, J ohn and El i zabeth Boal t Lect urer i nResi dence, Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a, Ber kel ey School of Law;COURTNEY G. J OSLI N, Prof essor of Law, Uni ver si t y of



11/98

11

Cal i f or ni a, Davi s School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE ANDEDUCATI ON FUND, I NC. ; NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON FOR THEADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNI VERSI TY SCHOOL OFLAW CI VI L RI GHTS CLI NI C; FAMI LY EQUALI TY COUNCI L; COLAGE;GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSI ONALS ADVANCI NG LGBT EQUALI TY; WI LLI AM

N. ESKRI DGE, J R. ; REBECCA L. BROWN; DANI EL A. FARBER;MI CHAEL GERHARDT; J ACK KNI GHT; ANDREW KOPPELMAN; MELI SSALAMB SAUNDERS; NEI L S. SI EGEL; J ANA B. SI NGER; HI STORI ANS OFANTIGAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS

UNI TED FOR SEPARATI ON OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: AJ EWI SH PARTNERSHI P FOR J USTI CE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN' SZI ONI ST ORGANI ZATI ON OF AMERI CA; HI NDU AMERI CAN FOUNDATI ON;THE I NTERFAI TH ALLI ANCE FOUNDATI ON; J APANESE AMERI CANCI TI ZENS LEAGUE; J EWI SH SOCI AL POLI CY ACTI ON NETWORK;KESHET; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCHES; MORE LI GHTPRESBYTERI ANS; THE NATI ONAL COUNCI L OF J EWI SH WOMEN;NEHI RI M; PEOPLE FOR THE AMERI CAN WAY FOUNDATI ON;PRESBYTERI AN WELCOME; RECONCI LI NGWORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULLPARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; SI KH AMERI CANLEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATI ON FUND; SOCI ETY FOR HUMANI STI CJ UDAI SM; T' RUAH: THE RABBI NI C CALL FOR HUMAN RI GHTS; WOMEN' SLEAGUE FOR CONSERVATI VE J UDAI SM; COLUMBI A LAW SCHOOLSEXUALI TY AND GENDER LAW CLI NI C; BI SHOPS OF THE EPI SCOPALCHURCH I N VI RGI NI A; CENTRAL ATLANTI C CONFERENCE OF THEUNI TED CHURCH OF CHRI ST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERI CANRABBI S; MORMONS FOR EQUALI TY; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CALASSOCI ATI ON; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL COLLEGE AND J EWI SHRECONSTRUCTI ONI ST COMMUNI TI ES; UNI ON FOR REFORM J UDAI SM; THE

UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST ASSOCI ATI ON; AFFI RMATI ON; COVENANTNETWORK OF PRESBYTERI ANS; METHODI ST FEDERATI ON FOR SOCI ALACTI ON; MORE LI GHT PRESBYTERI ANS; PRESBYTERI AN WELCOME;RECONCI LI NG MI NI STRI ES NETWORK; RECONCI LI NGWORKS: LUTHERANSFOR FULL PARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; WOMEN OFREFORM J UDAI SM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANI ZATI ONS REPRESENTI NGEMPLOYERS; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OFCALI FORNI A; STATE OF CONNECTI CUT; DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A;STATE OF I LLI NOI S; STATE OF I OWA; STATE OF MAI NE; STATE OFMARYLAND; STATE OF NEW HAMPSHI RE; STATE OF NEW MEXI CO; STATEOF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF

WASHI NGTON; GARY J . GATES; NATI ONAL AND WESTERN STATESWOMEN' S RI GHTS ORGANI ZATI ONS; VI RGI NI A CHAPTER OF THEAMERI CAN ACADEMY OF MATRI MONI AL LAWYERS; THE NATI ONALWOMEN' S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RI GHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF WOMEN LAWYERS; NATI ONAL PARTNERSHI PFOR WOMEN & FAMI LI ES; SOUTHWEST WOMEN' S LAW CENTER; WOMEN' SLAW PROJ ECT; PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCI ATED WI TH THE WI LLI AMSI NSTI TUTE; BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR I NDI VI DUAL FREEDOM;



12/98

12

LEADERSHI P CONFERENCE ON CI VI L AND HUMAN RI GHTS; PUBLI CI NTEREST ORGANI ZATI ONS; BAR ASSOCI ATI ONS; FAMI LY LAW ANDCONFLI CT OF LAWS PROFESSORS; GAY AND LESBI AN ADVOCATES ANDDEFENDERS; PEOPLE OF FAI TH FOR EQUALI TY I N VI RGI NI A;CELEBRATI ON CENTER FOR SPI RI TUAL LI VI NG; CLARENDON

PRESBYTERI AN CHURCH; COMMONWEALTH BAPTI ST CHURCH;CONGREGATI ON OR AMI ; HOPE UNI TED CHURCH OF CHRI ST; LI TTLERI VER UCC; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCH OF NORTHERNVI RGI NI A; MT. VERNON UNI TARI AN CHURCH; ST. J AMES UCC, ; ST.J OHN' S UCC; NEW LI FE METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCH;UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST FELLOWSHI P OF THE PENI NSULA;UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST CONGREGATI ON OF STERLI NG; UNI TEDCHURCH OF CHRI ST OF FREDERI CKSBURG; UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI STCHURCH OF LOUDOUN; ANDREW MERTZ; REV. MARI E HULM ADAM; REV.MARTY ANDERSON; REV ROBI N ANDERSON; REV. VERNE ARENS; RABBILI A BASS; REV. J OSEPH G. BEATTI E; REV. SUE BROWNI NG; REV.J I M BUNDY; REV. MARK BYRD; REV. STEVEN C. CLUNN; REV. DR.J OHN COPERHAVER; RABBI GARY CREDI TOR; REV. DAVI D ENSI GN;REV. HENRY FAI RMAN; RABBI J ESSE GALLOP; REV. TOMGERSTENLAUER; REV. ROBI N H. GORSLI NE; REV. TRI SH HALL; REV.WARREN HAMMONDS; REV. J ON HEASLET; REV. DOUGLAS HODGES; REV.PHYLLI S HUBBELL; REV. STEPHEN G. HYDE; REV. J ANET J AMES;REV. J OHN MANWELL; REV. J AMES W. MCNEAL; REV. MARC BOSWELL;REV. ANDREW CLI VE MI LLARD; REV. DR. MELANI E MI LLER; REV.AMBER NEUROTH; REV. J AMES PAPI LE; REV. LI NDA OLSON PEEBLES;REV. DON PRANGE; RABBI MI CHAEL RAGOZI N; RABBI BEN ROMER;REV. JENNIFER RYU; REV. ANYA SAMMLERMICHAEL; REV. AMYSCHWARTZMAN; REV. DANNY SPEARS; REV. MARK SURI ANO; REV. ROB

VAUGHN; REV. DANI EL VELEZRIVERA; REV. KATE R. WALKER; REV.TERRYE WILLIAMS; REV. DR. KARENMARIE YUST,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ees.

Appeal s f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er nDi st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, at Nor f ol k. Ar enda L. Wr i ght Al l en,Di st r i ct J udge. ( 2: 13- cv- 00395- AWA- LRL)

Ar gued: May 13, 2014 Deci ded: J ul y 28, 2014

Bef ore NI EMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Ci r cui t J udges.



13/98

13

Af f i r med by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Fl oyd wr ot e t he maj or i t yopi ni on, i n whi ch J udge Gr egory j oi ned. J udge Ni emeyer wr ote asepar at e di ssent i ng opi ni on.

ARGUED: Davi d Br andt Oakl ey, POOLE MAHONEY PC, Chesapeake,Vi r gi ni a; Davi d Aust i n Rober t Ni mocks, ALLI ANCE DEFENDI NGFREEDOM, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Appel l ant s Geor ge E. Schaef er ,I I I and Mi chl e McQui gg. St uart Al an Raphael , OFFI CE OF THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF VI RGI NI A, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l antJ anet M. Rai ney. Theodore B. Ol son, GI BSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER,LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Appel l ees. J ames D. Esseks, AMERI CANCI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or I nt er venor s. ONBRIEF: J ef f r ey F. Br ooke, POOLE MAHONEY PC, Chesapeake,Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ant Geor ge E. Schaef er , I I I . Byr on J .Babi one, Kennet h J . Connel l y, J . Cal eb Dal t on, ALLI ANCEDEFENDI NG FREEDOM, Scot t sdal e, Ar i zona, f or Appel l ant Mi chl e B.McQui gg. Mar k R. Her r i ng, At t or ney Gener al , Cynt hi a E. Hudson,Chi ef Deput y At t orney General , Rhodes B. Ri t enour , Deput yAt t or ney Gener al , Al l yson K. Tysi nger , Seni or Assi st ant At t or neyGener al , Cat her i ne Cr ooks Hi l l , Seni or Assi st ant At t or neyGener al , Tr evor S. Cox, Deput y Sol i ci t or Gener al , OFFI CE OF THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF VI RGI NI A, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l antJ anet M. Rai ney. Davi d Boi es, Ar monk, New Yor k, Wi l l i am A.I saacson, Washi ngt on, D. C. , J eremy M. Gol dman, Oakl and,Cal i f or ni a, Rober t Si l ver , J oshua I . Schi l l er , BOI ES, SCHI LLER &FLEXNER LLP, New Yor k, New Yor k; Theodor e J . Bout r ous, J r . ,

J oshua S. Li pshut z, GI BSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angel es,Cal i f or ni a; Thomas B. Shut t l ewor t h, Rober t E. Rul of f , Char l es B.Lust i g, Andr ew M. Hendr i ck, Er i k C. Por caro, SHUTTLEWORTH,RULOFF, SWAI N, HADDAD & MORECOCK, P. C. , Vi r gi ni a Beach,Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ees. Rebecca K. Gl enber g, AMERI CAN CI VI LLI BERTI ES UNI ON OF VI RGI NI A FOUNDATI ON, I NC. , Ri chmond,Vi r gi ni a; J oshua A. Bl ock, AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ONFOUNDATI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k; Gr egory R. Nevi ns, Tar a L.Bor el l i , LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATI ON FUND, I NC. , At l ant a,Geor gi a; Paul M. Smi t h, Luke C. Pl at zer , Mark P. Gaber , J ENNER &BLOCK LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or I nt er venor s. Davi d A.

Robi nson, Nort h Haven, Connect i cut , as Ami cus. Lynn D. Wardl e,BRI GHAM YOUNG UNI VERSI TY LAW SCHOOL, Provo, Ut ah; Wi l l i am C.Duncan, MARRI AGE LAW FOUNDATI ON, Lehi , Ut ah, f or Ami ci Al an J .Hawki ns and J ason S. Car r ol l . Deborah J . Dewart , DEBORAH J .DEWART, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Swansbor o, Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Ami ciNor t h Car ol i na Val ues Coal i t i on and Li ber t y, Li f e, and LawFoundat i on. Steve C. Tayl or , ALLI ANCE LEGAL GROUP, Chesapeake,Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Soci al Sci ence Pr of essor s. Paul Benj ami n



14/98

14

Li nt on, Nor t hbr ook, I l l i noi s, f or Ami cus Fami l y Resear chCounci l . J ohn C. East man, Ant hony T. Caso, Cent er f orConst i t ut i onal J ur i spr udence, CHAPMAN UNI VERSI TY DALE E. FOWLERSCHOOL OF LAW, Or ange, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami ci Vi r gi ni a Cat hol i cConf er ence, LLC and Cent er f or Const i t ut i onal J ur i spr udence.

Pat r i ck Mor r i sey, At t or ney Gener al , J ul i e Mar i e Bl ake, Assi st antAt t or ney Gener al , El ber t Li n, Sol i ci t or Gener al , OFFI CE OF THEWEST VI RGI NI A ATTORNEY GENERAL, Char l est on, West Vi r gi ni a, f orAmi cus St at e of West Vi r gi ni a. D. J ohn Sauer , St . Loui s,Mi ssour i , f or Ami cus I nst i t ut e f or Mar r i age and Publ i c Pol i cy.Henr y P. Wal l , Col umbi a, Sout h Car ol i na, f or Ami cus Hel en M.Al var e. Gr egor y F. Zoel l er , At t or ney Gener al , Thomas M. Fi sher ,Sol i ci t or General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I ndi anapol i s,I ndi ana; Lut her St r ange, At t orney General , OFFI CE OF THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, Mont gomer y, Al abama; Mi chael C.Ger aght y, At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFALASKA, J uneau, Al aska; Thomas C. Horne, At t orney General ,OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARI ZONA, Phoeni x, Ar i zona;J ohn Sut hers, At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALOF COLORADO, Denver , Col or ado; Lawr ence G. Wasden, At t or neyGeneral , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF I DAHO, Boi se, I daho;J ames D. "Buddy" Cal dwel l , At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUI SI ANA, Bat on Rouge, Loui si ana; Ti mot hyC. Fox, At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFMONTANA, Hel ena, Mont ana; J on Br uni ng, At t orney General , OFFI CEOF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, Li ncol n, Nebraska; E. Scot tPr ui t t , At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFOKLAHOMA, Okl ahoma Ci t y, Okl ahoma; Al an Wi l son, At t orney

Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLI NA,Col umbi a, Sout h Car ol i na; Mar t y J . J ackl ey, At t or ney Gener al ,OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Pi er r e, Sout hDakot a; Sean Reyes, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF THE STATE OF UTAH, Sal t Lake Ci t y, Ut ah; Peter K.Mi chael , At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFWYOMI NG, Cheyenne, Wyomi ng, f or Ami ci Stat es of I ndi ana,Al abama, Al aska, Ar i zona, Col or ado, I daho, Loui si ana, Mont ana,Nebr aska, Okl ahoma, Sout h Carol i na, Sout h Dakot a, Ut ah, andWyomi ng. Stephen M. Cr ampton, Mary E. McAl i st er , LI BERTYCOUNSEL, Lynchbur g, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Wal l Bui l der s, LLC.

Mathew D. St aver , Ani t a L. St aver , LI BERTY COUNSEL, Or l ando,Fl or i da, f or Ami ci Li ber t y Counsel and Amer i can Col l ege ofPedi at r i ci ans. Frank D. Myl ar , MYLAR LAW, P. C. , Sal t Lake Ci t y,Ut ah, f or Ami ci Schol ar s of Hi st or y and Rel at ed Di sci pl i nes andAmer i can Leadershi p Fund. Mi chael F. Smi t h, THE SMI TH APPELLATELAW FI RM, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Rober t P. Geor ge, Sher i fGi r gi s, and Ryan T. Anderson. Gerard V. Br adl ey, NOTRE DAME LAWSCHOOL, Not r e Dame, I ndi ana; Kevi n T. Sni der , PACI FI C J USTI CE



15/98

15

I NSTI TUTE, Oakl and, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Paul McHugh. Ant honyR. Pi car el l o, J r . , U. S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLI C BI SHOPS,Washi ngt on, D. C. ; R. Shawn Gunnar son, KI RTON MCCONKI E, Sal t LakeCi t y, Ut ah, f or Ami ci Uni t ed St at es Conf er ence of Cat hol i cBi shops, Nat i onal Associ at i on of Evangel i cal s, Chur ch of J esus

Chr i st of Lat t er - Day Sai nt s, The Et hi cs & Rel i gi ous Li ber t yCommi ss i on of t he Sout hern Bapt i st Convent i on, and Lut heranChur ch- Mi ssour i Synod. Er i c Rassbach, Asma Uddi n, THE BECKETFUND FOR RELI GI OUS LI BERTY, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami cus TheBecket Fund f or Rel i gi ous Li ber t y. Lawr ence J . J oseph,Washi ngt on, D. C. f or Ami cus Eagl e For um Educat i on and LegalDef ense Fund. Davi d Boyl e, Long Beach, Cal i f or ni a, as Ami cus.Davi d Boyl e, Long Beach, Cal i f orni a, f or Ami cus Rober t OscarLopez. Abbe Davi d Lowel l , Chr i st opher D. Man, CHADBOURNE &PARKE LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Out ser ve- SLDN and TheAmer i can Mi l i t ar y Par t ner Associ at i on. Geof f r ey R. St one, THEUNI VERSI TY OF CHI CAGO LAW SCHOOL, Chi cago, I l l i noi s; Lor i Al vi noMcGi l l , LATHAM & WATKI NS LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ciConst i t ut i onal Law Schol ar s Ashut osh Bhagwat , Lee Bol l i nger ,Er wi n Chemer i nsky, Wal t er Del l i nger , Mi chael C. Dor f , LeeEpst ei n, Dani el Far ber , Bar r y Fr i edman, Mi chael J . Ger har dt ,Debor ah Hel l man, J ohn C. J ef f r i es, J r . , Lawr ence Lessi g, Wi l l i amMar shal l , Frank Mi chel man, J ane S. Schact er , Chr i st opher H.Schr oeder , Suzanna Sher r y, Geof f r ey R. St one, Davi d St r auss,Laur ence H. Tr i be, and Wi l l i am Van Al st yne. St even W. Fi t schen,THE NATI ONAL LEGAL FOUNDATI ON, Vi r gi ni a Beach, Vi r gi ni a; Hol l yL. Carmi chael , San J ose, Cal i f orni a, f or Ami cus Concerned Womenf or Amer i ca. Car mi ne D. Boccuzzi , J r . , Mar k A. Li ght ner , Andr a

Tr oy, Andr ew P. Mei ser , CLEARY GOTTLI EB STEEN & HAMI LTON LLP,New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus The Amer i can Soci ol ogi calAssoci at i on. L. St even Emmer t , SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY,P. C. , Vi r gi ni a Beach, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Vi r gi ni aConst i t ut i onal Law Pr of essor s. Nat hal i e F. P. Gi l f oyl e, AMERI CANPSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; Br uce V. Spi va, THESPI VA LAW FI RM PLLC, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Amer i canPsychol ogi cal Associ at i on, Amer i can Academy of Pedi at r i cs,Amer i can Psychi at r i c Associ at i on, Nat i onal Associ at i on of Soci alWor ker s, and Vi r gi ni a Psychol ogi cal Associ at i on. Mar kKl ei nschmi dt , TI N FULTON WALKER & OWEN, Chapel Hi l l , Nor t h

Car ol i na; Ryan T. But l er , Gr eensbor o, Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Ami ciEqual i t y NC and Sout h Car ol i na Equal i t y Coal i t i on. Rose A.Saxe, J ames D. Esseks, AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ONFOUNDATI ON, New York, New York; Gar r ar d R. Beeney, Davi d A.Cast l eman, Cat her i ne M. Br adl ey, W. Rudol ph Kl eyst euber ,SULLI VAN & CROMWELL LLP, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami ci Mar ci eand Chant el l e Fi sher - Bor ne, Cr yst al Hendr i x and Lei gh Smi t h,Shana Car i gnan and Megan Par ker , Ter r i Beck and Lesl i e Zanagl i o,



16/98

16

Lee Kni ght Caf f ery and Dana Dr aa, Shawn Long and Cr ai g J ohnson,and Esmer al da Mej i a and Chr i st i na Gi nt er - Mej i a. El i zabet h B.Wydr a, Dougl as T. Kendal l , J udi t h E. Schaef f er , Davi d H. Gans,CONSTI TUTI ONAL ACCOUNTABI LI TY CENTER, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; I l yaShapi r o, CATO I NSTI TUTE, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Cato

I nst i t ut e and Const i t ut i onal Account abi l i t y Cent er . Dani elMcNeel Lane, J r . , Mat t hew E. Peppi ng, San Ant oni o, Texas,J essi ca M. Wei sel , AKI N GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, LosAngel es, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami ci Hi st or i ans of Mar r i age Pet er W.Bardagl i o, Norma Basch, St ephani e Coont z, Nancy F. Cot t , Toby L.Di t z, Ar i el a R. Dubl er , Laur a F. Edwar ds, Sar ah Bar r i ngerGordon, Mi chael Gr ossberg, Hendr i k Hart og, El l en Herman, Mart haHodes, Li nda K. Ker ber , Al i ce Kessl er - Har r i s, El ai ne Tyl er May,Ser ena Mayer i , St eve Mi nt z, El i zabet h Pl eck, Car ol e Shammas,Mary L. Shanl ey, Amy Dr u St anl ey, and Barbara Wel ke. J i yunCameron Lee, Andr ew J . Davi s, FOLGER LEVI N LLP, San Fr anci sco,Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Par ent s, Fami l i es and Fri ends of Lesbi ansand Gays, I nc. Ri t a F. Li n, Laur a W. Wei ssbei n, Sar a Bar t el ,MORRI SON & FOERSTER LLP, San Fr anci sco, Cal i f orni a, f or Ami ciKer r y Abr ams, Al ber t Cl ar k Tat e, J r . Pr of essor of Law Uni ver si t yof Vi r gi ni a School of Law, Vi vi an Hami l t on, Prof essor of LawWi l l i am and Mar y, Mer edi t h Har bach, Pr of essor of Law Uni ver si t yof Ri chmond, J oan Hei f et z Hol l i nger , J ohn and El i zabet h Boal tLect ur er i n Resi dence Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a, Ber kel ey Schoolof Law, Cour t ney G. J osl i n, Pr of essor of Law Uni ver si t y ofCal i f or ni a, Davi s School of Law, and For t y- Four Ot her Fami l y LawPr of essor s. Sher r i l yn I f i l l , Chr i st i na A. Swar ns, Ri a TabaccoMar , NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATI ONAL FUND, I NC. , New Yor k, New

Yor k; Ki m M. Keenan, NAACP, Bal t i mor e, Mar yl and, f or Ami ci NAACPLegal Def ense & Educat i onal Fund, I nc. and Nat i onal Associ at i onf or t he Advancement of Col ored Peopl e. Ader son Bel l egardeFr ancoi s, HOWARD UNI VERSI TY SCHOOL OF LAW CI VI L RI GHTS CLI NI C,Washi ngt on, D. C. ; Br ad W. Sei l i ng, Benj ami n G. Shatz, MANATT,PHELPS & PHI LLI PS, LLP, Los Angel es, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cusHowar d Uni ver si t y School of Law Ci vi l Ri ght s Cl i ni c. Al ec W.Far r , Washi ngt on, D. C. , Tr acy M. Tal bot , Kat her i ne Keat i ng,BRYAN CAVE LLP, San Fr anci sco, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami ci Fami l yEqual i t y Counci l and COLAGE. Ni chol as M. O' Donnel l , SULLI VAN &WORCESTER LLP, Bost on, Massachuset t s, f or Ami cus GLMA: Heal t h

Pr of essi onal s Advanci ng LGBT Equal i t y. Kat hl een M. O' Sul l i van,Mi ca D. Si mpson, PERKI NS COI E LLP, Seat t l e, Washi ngt on, f orAmi ci Wi l l i am N. Eskr i dge, J r . , Rebecca L. Br own, Dani el A.Far ber , Mi chael Ger har dt , J ack Kni ght , Andr ew Koppel man, Mel i ssaLamb Saunder s, Nei l S. Si egel , and J ana B. Si nger . Cat her i ne E.St et son, Er i ca Kni evel Songer , Mar y Hel en Wi mber l y, Kat i e D.Fai r chi l d, Madel i ne H. Gi t omer , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP,Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami cus Hi st or i ans of Ant i gay



17/98

17

Di scr i mi nat i on. Rocky C. Tsai , Samuel P. Bi cket t , RebeccaHar l ow, ROPES & GRAY LLP, San Fr anci sco, Cal i f orni a; St even M.Fr eeman, Set h M. Marni n, Mel i ssa Gar l i ck, ANTI - DEFAMATI ONLEAGUE, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami ci Ant i - Def amat i on League,Amer i cans Uni t ed f or Separat i on of Chur ch and St ate, Bend the

Ar c: A J ewi sh Par t ner shi p f or J ust i ce, Hadassah, The Women' sZi oni st Or gani zat i on of Amer i ca, Hi ndu Amer i can Foundat i on, TheI nt er f ai t h Al l i ance Foundat i on, J apanese Amer i can Ci t i zensLeague, J ewi sh Soci al Pol i cy Act i on Net wor k, Keshet ,Met r opol i t an Communi t y Chur ches, More Li ght Presbyt er i ans, TheNat i onal Counci l of J ewi sh Women, Nehi r i m, Peopl e For t heAmer i can Way Foundat i on, Pr esbyt er i an Wel come, Reconci l i ngworks:Lut her ans f or Ful l Par t i ci pat i on, Rel i gi ous I nst i t ut e, I nc. ,Si kh Amer i can Legal Def ense and Educat i on Fund, Soci ety f orHumani st i c J udai sm, T' Ruah: The Rabbi ni c Cal l f or Human Ri ght s,and Women' s League For Conser vat i ve J udai sm. Mat t hew P.McGui r e, Bever l ee E. Si l va, Di ane S. Wi zi g, ALSTON & BI RD LLP,Dur ham, Nort h Carol i na; Suzanne B. Gol dberg, Sexual i t y andGender Law Cl i ni c, COLUMBI A LAW SCHOOL, New Yor k, New Yor k, f orAmi cus Col umbi a Law School Sexual i t y and Gender Law Cl i ni c.J ef f r ey S. Tr acht man, Nor man C. Si mon, J ason M. Mof f , Kur t M.Denk, J ess i ca N. Wi t t e, KRAMER LEVI N NAFTALI S & FRANKEL LLP, NewYor k, New Yor k, f or Ami ci Bi shops of t he Epi scopal Chur ch i nVi r gi ni a, The Cent r al At l ant i c Conf er ence of t he Uni t ed Chur chof Chr i st , Cent r al Conf er ence of Amer i can Rabbi s, Mor mons f orEqual i t y, Reconst r uct i oni st Rabbi ni cal Associ at i on,Reconst r uct i oni st Rabbi ni cal Col l ege and J ewi shReconst r uct i oni st Communi t i es, Uni on f or Ref or m J udai sm, The

Uni t ar i an Uni ver sal i st Associ at i on, Af f i r mat i on, CovenantNet wor k of Pr esbyter i ans, Met hodi st Feder at i on f or Soci alAct i on, Mor e Li ght Pr esbyter i ans, Pr esbyter i an Wel come,Reconci l i ng Mi ni st r i es Net wor k, Reconsi l i ngwor ks: Lut her ans ForFul l Par t i ci pat i on, Rel i gi ous I nst i t ut e, I nc. , and Women ofRef or m J udai sm. Susan Baker Manni ng, Mi chael L. Whi t l ock,Mar gar et E. Sheer , J ar ed A. Cr af t , Sar a M. Car i an, J essi ca C.Br ooks, Kat her i ne R. Moskop, J ohn A. Pol i t o, St ephani e Schust er ,BI NGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami cus 28 Empl oyersand Or gani zat i ons Repr esent i ng Empl oyers. Mart ha Coakl ey,At t or ney Gener al , J onat han B. Mi l l er , Assi st ant At t or ney

Gener al , Genevi eve C. Nadeau, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al ,Mi chel l e L. Leung, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Freder i ck D.Augenst ern, Ass i st ant At t orney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Bost on,Massachuset t s; Kamal a D. Harr i s, At t orney General , OFFI CE OF THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALI FORNI A, Sacr amento, Cal i f or ni a; GeorgeJ epsen, At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFCONNECTI CUT, Har t f or d, Connect i cut ; I r vi n B. Nat han, At t or ney



18/98

18

Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DI STRI CT OFCOLUMBI A, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; Li sa Madi gan, At t orney General ,OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF I LLI NOI S, Chi cago, I l l i noi s;Tom Mi l l er , At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFI OWA, Des Moi nes, I owa; J anet T. Mi l l s, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MAI NE, August a, Mai ne; Dougl as F.Gansl er , At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFMARYLAND, Bal t i more, Maryl and; J oseph A. Fost er , At t orneyGener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHI RE,Concord, New Hampshi r e; Gary K. Ki ng, At t orney General , OFFI CEOF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXI CO, Sant a Fe, New Mexi co;Er i c T. Schnei der man, At t orney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF NEW YORK, New York, New York; El l en F. Rosenbl um,At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OREGON,Sal em, Or egon; Wi l l i am H. Sor r el l , At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, Mont pel i er , Ver mont ; Robert W.Fer guson, At t or ney General , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFWASHI NGTON, Ol ympi a, Washi ngt on, f or Ami ci Massachuset t s,Cal i f or ni a, Connect i cut , Di str i ct of Col umbi a, I l l i noi s, I owa,Mai ne, Maryl and, New Hampshi r e, New Mexi co, New Yor k, Or egon,Vermont , and Washi ngt on. Br ad W. Sei l i ng, Benj ami n G. Shatz,MANATT, PHELPS & PHI LLI PS, LLP, Los Angel es, Cal i f or ni a, f orAmi cus Gary J . Gat es. Br uce A. Wessel , Moez M. Kaba, C.Mi t chel l Hendy, Br i an Eggl est on, I RELL & MANELLA LLP, LosAngel es, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Nat i onal and West er n St at esWomen' s Ri ght s Or gani zat i ons. Donal d K. But l er , BATZLI STI LESBUTLER, P. C. , Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a; Susan M. But l er , SHOUNBACH,P. C. , Fai r f ax, Vi r gi ni a; Dani el L. Gr ay, St ephani e J . Smi t h,

Kr i st en L. Kugel , Anne B. Robi nson, COOPER GI NSBERG GRAY, PLLC,Fai r f ax, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Vi r gi ni a Chapt er of The Amer i canAcademy of Mat r i moni al Lawyer s. Marci a D. Gr eenberger , Emi l y J .Mar t i n, Cor t el you C. Kenney, NATI ONAL WOMEN' S LAW CENTER,Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci The Nat i onal Women' s Law Cent er ,Equal Ri ght s Advocates, Legal Moment um, Nat i onal Associ at i on ofWomen Lawyers, Nat i onal Par t ner shi p f or Women & Fami l i es,Sout hwest Women' s Law Cent er , Women' s Law Pr oj ect , andPr of essor s of Law Associ at ed wi t h The Wi l l i ams I nst i t ut e.J er ome C. Rot h, Ni col e S. Phi l l i s, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP,San Franci sco, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Bay Ar ea Lawyer s f or

I ndi vi dual Freedom. Shannon P. Mi nt er , Chr i st opher F. St ol l ,J ai me Hul i ng Del aye, NATI ONAL CENTER FOR LESBI AN RI GHTS,Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Leader shi p Conf er ence on Ci vi l andHuman Ri ght s, Publ i c I nt er est Or gani zat i ons, and BarAssoci at i ons. J oanna L. Gr ossman, HOFSTRA LAW SCHOOL,Hempst ead, New Yor k; Mar j or y A. Gent r y, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, SanFranci sco, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Fami l y Law and Conf l i ct ofLaws Pr of essor s. Mar k C. Fl emi ng, Fel i ci a H. El l swor t h, Bost on,



19/98

19

Massachuset t s, Paul R. Q. Wol f son, Di na B. Mi shr a, Leah M.Li t man, Washi ngton, D. C. , Al an Schoenf el d, WI LMER CUTLERPI CKERI NG HALE AND DORR LLP, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus Gay& Lesbi an Advocat es & Def ender s. J ohn Humphr ey, THE HUMPHREYLAW FI RM, Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami ci Peopl e of Fai t h For

Equal i t y i n Vi r gi ni a ( POFEV) , Cel ebr at i on Cent er f or Spi r i t ualLi vi ng, Cl arendon Presbyt er i an Chur ch, Commonweal t h Bapt i stChur ch, Congr egat i on or AMI , Hope Uni t ed Chur ch of Chr i st ,Li t t l e Ri ver UCC, Met r opol i t an Communi t y Chur ch of Nor t hernVi r gi ni a, Mt . Ver non Uni t ar i an Chur ch, St . J ames UCC, St . J ohn' sUCC, New Li f e Met r opol i t an Communi t y Chur ch, Uni t ar i anUni ver sal i st Fel l owshi p of t he Peni nsul a, Uni t ar i an Uni ver sal i stCongr egat i on of St er l i ng, Uni t ed Chur ch of Chr i st ofFreder i cksbur g, Uni t ar i an Uni ver sal i st Chur ch of Loudoun, Rev.Mar i e Hul m Adam, Rev. Mar t y Anderson, Rev. Robi n Anderson, Rev.Ver ne Ar ens, Rabbi Li a Bass, Rev. J oseph G. Beat t i e, Rev. Mar cBoswel l , Rev. Sue Br owni ng, Rev. J i m Bundy, Rev. Mark Byrd, Rev.St even C. Cl unn, Rev. Dr . J ohn Coper haver , Rabbi Gar y Cr edi t or ,Rev. Davi d Ensi gn, Rev. Henr y Fai r man, Rabbi J esse Gal l op, Rev.Tom Ger st enl auer , Rev. Dr . Robi n H. Gor sl i ne, Rev. Tr i sh Hal l ,Rev. War r en Hammonds, Rev. J on Heasl et , Rev. Dougl as Hodges,Rev. Phyl l i s Hubbel l , Rev. St ephen G. Hyde, Rev. J anet J ames,Rev. J ohn Manwel l , Rev. J ames W. McNeal , Andr ew Mer t z, Rev.Andr ew Cl i ve Mi l l ar d, Rev. Dr . Mel ani e Mi l l er , Rev. AmberNeur ot h, Rev. J ames Papi l e, Rev. Li nda Ol son Peebl es, Rev. DonPrange, Rabbi Mi chael Ragozi n, Rabbi Ben Romer , Rev. J enni f erRyu, Rev. Anya Samml er - Mi chael , Rabbi Amy Schwar t zman, Rev.Danny Spear s, Rev. Mark Sur i ano, Rev. Rob Vaughn, Rev. Dani el

Vel ez- Ri ver a, Rev. Kat e R. Wal ker , Rev. Ter r ye Wi l l i ams, andRev. Dr . Kar en- Mar i e Yust .



20/98

20

FLOYD, Ci r cui t J udge:

Vi a var i ous st at e st at ut es and a st at e const i t ut i onal

amendment , Vi r gi ni a pr event s same- sex coupl es f r om marr yi ng and

r ef uses t o recogni ze same- sex marr i ages per f ormed el sewhere.

Two same- sex coupl es f i l ed sui t t o chal l enge t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of t hese l aws, al l egi ng t hat t hey vi ol at e t he

Due Process and Equal Protect i on Cl auses of t he Four t eent h

Amendment . The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he coupl es mot i on f or

summar y j udgment and enj oi ned Vi r gi ni a f r om enf or ci ng t he l aws.

Thi s appeal f ol l owed. Because we concl ude t hat Vi r gi ni a s same-

sex mar r i age bans i mper mi ssi bl y i nf r i nge on i t s ci t i zens

f undament al r i ght t o mar r y, we af f i r m.

I .

A.

Thi s case concer ns a ser i es of st at ut or y and const i t ut i onal

mechani sms t hat Vi r gi ni a empl oyed to pr ohi bi t l egal r ecogni t i on

f or same- sex r el at i onshi ps i n t hat st at e. 1 Vi r gi ni a enact ed t he

1 Thr ee ot her st at es i n t hi s Ci r cui t have si mi l ar bans:

Nor t h Car ol i na, N. C. Const . ar t . XI V, 6; N. C. Gen. St at . 51- 1, 51- 1. 2; Sout h Car ol i na, S. C. Const . ar t . XVI I , 15;S. C. Code Ann. 20- 1- 10, 20- 1- 15; and West Vi r gi ni a, W. Va.Code 48- 2- 603. The Sout her n Di st r i ct of West Vi r gi ni a hasst ayed a chal l enge t o West Vi r gi ni a s s t at ut e pendi ng ourr esol ut i on of t hi s appeal . McGee v. Col e, No. 3: 13- cv- 24068( S. D. W. Va. J une 10, 2014) ( or der di r ect i ng st ay) .



21/98

21

f i r st of t hese l aws i n 1975: Vi r gi ni a Code sect i on 20- 45. 2,

whi ch pr ovi des t hat mar r i age bet ween persons of t he same sex i s

pr ohi bi t ed. Af t er t he Supr eme Cour t of Hawai i t ook st eps t o

l egal i ze same- sex marr i age i n t he mi d- 1990s, Vi r gi ni a amended

sect i on 20- 45. 2 t o speci f y t hat [ a] ny mar r i age ent er ed i nt o by

per sons of t he same sex i n anot her st at e or j ur i sdi ct i on shal l

be voi d i n al l r espect s i n Vi r gi ni a and any cont r act ual r i ght s

cr eat ed by such mar r i age shal l be voi d and unenf or ceabl e. I n

2004, Vi r gi ni a added ci vi l uni ons and si mi l ar ar r angement s t o

t he l i st of pr ohi bi t ed same- sex rel at i onshi ps vi a t he

Af f i r mat i on of Mar r i age Act . See Va. Code Ann. 20- 45. 3.

Vi r gi ni a s ef f or t s t o ban same- sex mar r i age and ot her

l egal l y recogni zed same- sex rel at i onshi ps cul mi nat ed i n t he

Marshal l / Newman Amendment t o t he Vi r gi ni a Const i t ut i on:

That onl y a uni on bet ween one man and one woman may bea mar r i age val i d i n or r ecogni zed by t hi s Commonweal t hand i t s pol i t i cal subdi vi s i ons.

Thi s Commonweal t h and i t s pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons shal lnot creat e or r ecogni ze a l egal st at us f orr el at i onshi ps of unmar r i ed i ndi vi dual s t hat i nt ends t oappr oxi mat e t he desi gn, qual i t i es, si gni f i cance, oref f ect s of mar r i age. Nor shal l t hi s Commonweal t h ori t s pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons cr eat e or r ecogni ze anot heruni on, par t ner shi p, or ot her l egal st at us t o whi ch i s

assi gned t he r i ght s, benef i t s, obl i gat i ons, qual i t i es,or ef f ect s of mar r i age.

Va. Const . ar t . I , 15- A. The Vi r gi ni a Const i t ut i on i mposes

t wo hur dl es t hat a pot ent i al amendment must j ump bef ore becomi ng

l aw: t he Gener al Assembl y must approve t he amendment i n t wo



22/98

22

separ at e l egi sl at i ve sessi ons, and t he peopl e must r at i f y i t .

Va. Const . ar t . XI I , 1. The Gener al Assembl y appr oved t he

Mar shal l / Newman Amendment i n 2005 and 2006. I n November 2006,

Vi r gi ni a s vot er s rat i f i ed i t by a vot e of f i f t y- seven per cent

t o f or t y- t hr ee per cent . I n t he aggr egat e, Vi r gi ni a Code

sect i ons 20- 45. 2 and 20- 45. 3 and t he Mar shal l / Newman Amendment

pr ohi bi t same- sex mar r i age, ban ot her l egal l y r ecogni zed same-

sex r el at i onshi ps, and r ender same- sex marr i ages per f ormed

el sewher e l egal l y meani ngl ess under Vi r gi ni a st at e l aw.

B.

Same- sex coupl es Ti mot hy B. Bost i c and Tony C. London and

Car ol Schal l and Mar y Townl ey ( col l ect i vel y, t he Pl ai nt i f f s)

br ought t hi s l awsui t t o chal l enge t he const i t ut i onal i t y of

Vi r gi ni a Code sect i ons 20- 45. 2 and 20- 45. 3, t he Marshal l / Newman

Amendment , and any ot her Vi r gi ni a l aw t hat bars same- sex

mar r i age or pr ohi bi t s t he St at e s r ecogni t i on of ot her wi se-

l awf ul same- sex mar r i ages f r om ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons

( col l ect i vel y, t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws). The Pl ai nt i f f s

cl ai m t hat t he i nabi l i t y t o mar r y or have t hei r r el at i onshi p

r ecogni zed by t he Commonweal t h of Vi r gi ni a wi t h the di gni t y and

r espect accor ded t o marr i ed opposi t e- sex coupl es has caused t hem

si gni f i cant har dshi p . . . and sever e humi l i at i on, emot i onal

di st r ess, pai n, suf f er i ng, psychol ogi cal har m, and st i gma.



23/98

23

Bost i c and London have been i n a l ong- t erm, commi t t ed

r el at i onshi p wi t h each ot her si nce 1989 and have l i ved t oget her

f or more t han t went y years. They desi r e t o marr y each ot her

under t he l aws of t he Commonweal t h i n or der t o publ i cl y announce

t hei r commi t ment t o one another and t o enj oy t he r i ght s,

pr i vi l eges, and pr ot ect i ons t hat t he St at e conf er s on mar r i ed

coupl es. On J ul y 1, 2013, Bost i c and London appl i ed f or a

mar r i age l i cense f r om t he Cl er k f or t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or t he

Ci t y of Nor f ol k. The Cl er k deni ed t hei r appl i cat i on because

t hey are bot h men.

Schal l and Townl ey ar e women who have been a coupl e si nce

1985 and have l i ved t oget her as a f ami l y f or near l y t hi r t y

year s. They wer e l awf ul l y mar r i ed i n Cal i f or ni a i n 2008. I n

1998, Townl ey gave bi r t h t o the coupl e s daught er , E. S. - T.

Schal l and Townl ey i dent i f y a host of consequences of t hei r

i nabi l i t y t o mar r y i n Vi r gi ni a and Vi r gi ni a s r ef usal t o

r ecogni ze t hei r Cal i f or ni a mar r i age, i ncl udi ng t he f ol l owi ng:

Schal l coul d not vi si t Townl ey i n t he hospi t al f or sever al

hours when Townl ey was admi t t ed due t o pr egnancy- r el at ed

compl i cat i ons.

Schal l cannot l egal l y adopt E. S. - T. , whi ch f or ced her t o

r et ai n an at t or ney t o pet i t i on f or f ul l j oi nt l egal and

physi cal cust ody.



24/98

24

Vi r gi ni a wi l l not l i st bot h Schal l and Townl ey as E. S. -

T. s parent s on her bi r t h cer t i f i cat e.

Unt i l Febr uary 2013, Schal l and Townl ey coul d not cover one

anot her on t hei r empl oyer - pr ovi ded heal t h i nsurance.

Townl ey has been abl e t o cover Schal l on her i nsur ance

si nce t hen, but , unl i ke an opposi t e- sex spouse, Schal l must

pay st at e i ncome taxes on t he benef i t s she r ecei ves.

Schal l and Townl ey must pay st at e t axes on benef i t s pai d

pur suant t o empl oyee benef i t s pl ans i n t he event of one oft hei r deat hs.

Schal l and Townl ey cannot f i l e j oi nt st at e i ncome t ax

r et ur ns, whi ch has cost t hem t housands of dol l ar s.

On J ul y 18, 2013, Bost i c and London sued f ormer Gover nor

Robert F. McDonnel l , f ormer At t orney General Kenneth T.

Cucci nel l i , and Geor ge E. Schaef er , I I I , i n hi s of f i ci al

capaci t y as t he Cl er k f or t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or t he Ci t y of

Nor f ol k. The Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hei r Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt on

September 3, 2013. The Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt added Schal l and

Townl ey as pl ai nt i f f s, r emoved McDonnel l and Cucci nel l i as

def endant s, and added J anet M. Rai ney as a def endant i n her

of f i ci al capaci t y as t he St at e Regi st r ar of Vi t al Recor ds. The

Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws ar e f aci al l y

i nval i d under t he Due Pr ocess and Equal Prot ect i on Cl auses of



25/98

25

t he Four t eenth Amendment and t hat Schaef er and Rai ney vi ol at ed

42 U. S. C. 1983 by enf or ci ng t hose l aws.

The par t i es f i l ed cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment . The

Pl ai nt i f f s al so request ed a per manent i nj unct i on i n connect i on

wi t h t hei r mot i on f or summary j udgment and moved, i n t he

al t er nat i ve, f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i n t he event t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hei r mot i on f or summar y j udgment . The

di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed a mot i on by Mi chl e McQui ggt he Pr i nce

Wi l l i am Count y Cl er k of Cour t t o i nt er vene as a def endant on

J anuar y 21, 2014. Two days l at er , new At t or ney General Mar k

Her r i ngas Rai ney s counsel submi t t ed a f ormal change i n

posi t i on and r ef used t o def end t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws,

al t hough Vi r gi ni a cont i nues t o enf orce t hem. McQui gg adopt ed

Rai ney s pr i or mot i on f or summary j udgment and t he br i ef s i n

suppor t of t hat mot i on.

The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws

wer e unconst i t ut i onal on Febr uar y 14, 2014. Bost i c v. Rai ney,

970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 483 ( E. D. Va. 2014) . I t t her ef or e deni ed

Schaef er s and McQui gg s mot i ons f or summary j udgment and

gr ant ed t he Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on. The di st r i ct cour t al so

enj oi ned Vi r gi ni a s empl oyeesi ncl udi ng Rai ney and her

empl oyeesand Schaef er , McQui gg, and t hei r of f i cers, agent s, and

empl oyees f r om enf or ci ng t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws. I d. at



26/98

26

484. The cour t s t ayed t he i nj unct i on pendi ng our r esol ut i on of

t hi s appeal . I d.

Rai ney, Schaef er , and McQui gg t i mel y appeal ed t he di st r i ct

cour t s deci si on. We have j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o 28 U. S. C.

1291. On Mar ch 10, 2014, we al l owed t he pl ai nt i f f s f r om

Har r i s v. Rai neya si mi l ar case pendi ng bef or e J udge Mi chael

Ur banski i n t he West er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni at o i nt er vene.

J udge Ur banski had previ ousl y cer t i f i ed t hat case as a cl ass

act i on on behal f of al l same- sex coupl es i n Vi r gi ni a who have

not mar r i ed i n anot her j ur i sdi ct i on and al l same- sex coupl es

i n Vi r gi ni a who have mar r i ed i n anot her j ur i sdi ct i on, excl udi ng

t he Pl ai nt i f f s. Har r i s v. Rai ney, No. 5: 13- cv- 077, 2014 WL

352188, at *1, 12 ( W. D. Va. J an. 31, 2014) .

Our anal ysi s pr oceeds i n t hr ee st eps. Fi r st , we consi der

whet her t he Pl ai nt i f f s possess st andi ng t o br i ng t hei r cl ai ms.

Second, we eval uat e whet her t he Supr eme Cour t s summar y

di smi ssal of a si mi l ar l awsui t i n Baker v. Nel son, 409 U. S. 810

( 1972) ( mem. ) , r emai ns bi ndi ng. Thi r d, we det er mi ne whi ch l evel

of const i t ut i onal scrut i ny appl i es her e and t est t he Vi r gi ni a

Mar r i age Laws usi ng t he appr opr i at e st andar d. For pur poses of

t hi s opi ni on, we adopt t he t er mi nol ogy t he di st r i ct cour t used

t o descr i be t he par t i es i n t hi s case. The Pl ai nt i f f s, Rai ney,

and t he Har r i s cl ass ar e the Opponent s of t he Vi r gi ni a

Mar r i age Laws. Schaef er and McQui gg are t he Pr oponent s.



27/98


28/98

28

Schaef er pr emi ses hi s ar gument t hat t he Pl ai nt i f f s l ack st andi ng

t o br i ng t hei r cl ai ms on t he i dea t hat ever y pl ai nt i f f must have

st andi ng as t o every def endant . However , t he Supr eme Cour t has

made i t cl ear t hat t he pr esence of one part y wi t h st andi ng i s

suf f i ci ent t o sat i s f y Ar t i cl e I I I s case- or - cont r over sy

r equi r ement . Rumsf el d v. For um f or Academi c & I nst i t ut i onal

Ri ght s, I nc. , 547 U. S. 47, 52 n. 2 ( 2006) ; see al so Dep t of

Commerce v. U. S. House of Repr esent at i ves, 525 U. S. 316, 330

( 1999) ( hol di ng t hat a case i s j ust i ci abl e i f some, but not

necessar i l y al l , of t he pl ai nt i f f s have st andi ng as t o a

par t i cul ar def endant ) ; Vi l l . of Ar l i ngt on Hei ght s v. Met r o.

Housi ng Dev. Corp. , 429 U. S. 252, 263- 64 ( 1977) ( same) . The

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms can t her ef or e sur vi ve Schaef er s st andi ng

chal l enge as l ong as one coupl e sat i sf i es t he st andi ng

r equi r ement s wi t h respect t o each def endant .

Schaef er ser ves as t he Cl er k f or t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or t he

Ci t y of Nor f ol k. I n Vi r gi ni a, ci r cui t cour t cl er ks ar e

r esponsi bl e f or i ssui ng mar r i age l i censes and f i l i ng r ecor ds of

mar r i age. Va. Code Ann. 20- 14, 32. 1- 267. Al t hough Schal l

and Townl ey di d not seek a mar r i age l i cense f r om Schaef er , t he

di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Bost i c and London di d so and t hat

Schaef er deni ed t hei r r equest because t hey ar e a same- sex



29/98

29

coupl e. 2 Bost i c, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 462, 467. Thi s l i cense

deni al const i t ut es an i nj ur y f or st andi ng pur poses. See S.

Bl ast i ng Ser vs. , I nc. v. Wi l kes Cnt y. , 288 F. 3d 584, 595 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2002) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s had not suf f er ed an

i nj ur y because they had not appl i ed f or , or been deni ed, t he

per mi t i n quest i on) ; Scot t v. Gr eenvi l l e Cnt y. , 716 F. 2d 1409,

1414- 15 & n. 6 ( 4t h Ci r . 1983) ( hol di ng t hat deni al of bui l di ng

per mi t const i t ut ed an i nj ur y) . Bost i c and London can t r ace t hi s

deni al t o Schaef er s enf or cement of t he al l egedl y

unconst i t ut i onal Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws, 3 and decl ar i ng those

2 Schaef er cont ends t hat Schal l and Townl ey cannot br i ng a 1983 cl ai m agai nst hi m f or t he same r eason: he di d not commi tany act or omi ss i on t hat har med t hem. To br i ng a successf ul 1983 cl ai m, a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat t he al l egedi nf r i ngement of f eder al r i ght s [ i s] f ai r l y at t r i but abl e t o t hest at e[ . ] Rendel l - Baker v. Kohn, 457 U. S. 830, 838 ( 1982)

( quot i ng Lugar v. Edmondson Oi l Co. , 457 U. S. 922, 937 ( 1982) ) .Schaef er s act i on i n denyi ng Bost i c and London s appl i cat i on f ora mar r i age l i cense i s cl ear l y at t r i but abl e t o t he st at e. Thedi st r i ct cour t coul d t her ef or e ent er t ai n a 1983 cl ai m agai nstSchaef er wi t hout ascer t ai ni ng whether he commi t t ed any act i onwi t h r espect t o Schal l and Townl ey.

3 For t hi s r eason, and cont r ar y t o Schaef er s asser t i ons,Schaef er i s al so a pr oper def endant under Ex part e Young, 209U. S. 123 ( 1908) . Pur suant t o Ex par t e Young, t he El event hAmendment does not bar a ci t i zen f r om sui ng a st at e of f i cer t o

enj oi n t he enf orcement of an unconst i t ut i onal l aw when theof f i cer has some connect i on wi t h t he enf or cement of t he act . Lyt l e v. Gr i f f i t h, 240 F. 3d 404, 412 ( 4t h Ci r . 2001) ( emphasi somi t t ed) ( quot i ng Ex par t e Young, 209 U. S. at 157) . Schaef erbear s t he r equi si t e connect i on t o t he enf orcement of t heVi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws due t o hi s r ol e i n gr ant i ng and denyi ngappl i cat i ons f or mar r i age l i censes.



30/98

30

l aws unconst i t ut i onal and enj oi ni ng t hei r enf or cement woul d

r edr ess Bost i c and London s i nj ur i es. Bost i c and London

t her ef or e possess Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng wi t h r espect t o Schaef er .

We consequent l y need not consi der whet her Schal l and Townl ey

have st andi ng t o sue Schaef er . See Horne v. Fl or es, 557 U. S.

433, 446- 47 ( 2009) ( decl i ni ng to anal yze whet her addi t i onal

pl ai nt i f f s had st andi ng when one pl ai nt i f f di d) .

Rai neyas t he Regi st r ar of Vi t al Recor dsi s t asked wi t h

devel opi ng Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l i cense appl i cat i on f or m and

di str i but i ng i t t o t he ci r cui t cour t cl er ks t hr oughout Vi r gi ni a.

Va. Code Ann. 32. 1- 252( A) ( 9) , 32. 1- 267( E) . Nei t her

Schaef er s nor Rai ney s r esponse t o the Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt

di sput es i t s descr i pt i on of Rai ney s dut i es:

Def endant Rai ney i s r esponsi bl e f or ensur i ngcompl i ance wi t h t he Commonweal t h s l aws r el at i ng t o

mar r i age i n gener al and, mor e speci f i cal l y, i sr esponsi bl e f or enf or cement of t he speci f i c pr ovi si onsat i ssue i n t hi s Amended Compl ai nt , namel y t hose l awst hat l i mi t mar r i age t o opposi t e- sex coupl es and t hatr ef use t o honor t he benef i t s of same- sex mar r i agesl awf ul l y ent er ed i nt o i n ot her st at es.

I n addi t i on t o per f or mi ng t hese mar r i age- r el at ed f unct i ons,

Rai ney devel ops and di st r i but es bi r t h cer t i f i cat e f or ms,

over sees t he r ul es r el at i ng t o bi r t h cer t i f i cat es, and f ur ni shesf or ms r el at i ng t o adopt i on so t hat Vi r gi ni a can col l ect t he

i nf or mat i on necessary t o pr epar e t he adopt ed chi l d s bi r t h



31/98

31

cer t i f i cat e. I d. 32. 1- 252( A) ( 2) - ( 3) , ( 9) , 32. 1- 257, 32. 1-

261( A) ( 1) , 32. 1- 262, 32. 1- 269.

Rai ney s pr omul gat i on of a mar r i age l i cense appl i cat i on

f or m t hat does not al l ow same- sex coupl es t o obt ai n mar r i age

l i censes r esul t ed i n Schaef er s deni al of Bost i c and London s

mar r i age l i cense r equest . For t he r easons we descr i be above,

t hi s l i cense deni al const i t ut es an i nj ur y. Bost i c and London

can t r ace t hi s i nj ur y t o Rai ney due t o her r ol e i n devel opi ng

t he mar r i age l i cense appl i cat i on f or m i n compl i ance wi t h t he

Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws, and t he r el i ef t hey seek woul d r edr ess

t hei r i nj ur i es. Bost i c and London consequent l y have st andi ng t o

sue Rai ney.

Schal l and Townl ey al so possess st andi ng t o br i ng t hei r

cl ai ms agai nst Rai ney. They sat i sf y t he i nj ur y r equi r ement i n

t wo ways. Fi r st , i n equal pr ot ect i on casessuch as t hi s case

[ w] hen t he government erect s a bar r i er t hat makes i t more

di f f i cul t f or member s of one gr oup t o obt ai n a benef i t t han i t

i s f or member s of anot her gr oup, . . . . [ t ] he i nj ur y i n f act

. . . i s t he deni al of equal t r eat ment r esul t i ng f r om t he

i mposi t i on of t he bar r i er [ . ] Ne. Fl a. Chapt er of Associ at ed

Gen. Cont r act or s of Am. v. Ci t y of J acksonvi l l e, 508 U. S. 656,

666 ( 1993) . The Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws er ect such a bar r i er ,

whi ch pr event s same- sex coupl es f r om obt ai ni ng t he emot i onal ,

soci al , and f i nanci al benef i t s t hat opposi t e- sex coupl es r eal i ze



32/98

32

upon marr i age. Second, Schal l and Townl ey al l ege t hat t hey have

suf f er ed st i gmat i c i nj ur i es due t o t hei r i nabi l i t y t o get

mar r i ed i n Vi r gi ni a and Vi r gi ni a s r ef usal t o r ecogni ze t hei r

Cal i f or ni a mar r i age. St i gmat i c i nj ur y st emmi ng f r om

di scr i mi nat or y tr eat ment i s suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y st andi ng s

i nj ur y r equi r ement i f t he pl ai nt i f f i dent i f i es some concret e

i nt er est wi t h r espect t o whi ch [ he or she] [ i s] per sonal l y

subj ect t o di scri mi nat or y t r eat ment and [ t ] hat i nt er est . . .

i ndependent l y sat i sf [ i es] t he causat i on r equi r ement of st andi ng

doct r i ne. Al l en, 468 U. S. at 757 n. 22, abr ogat ed on ot her

gr ounds by Lexmar k I nt l , I nc. v. St at i c Cont r ol Component s, 134

S. Ct . 1377 ( 2014) . Schal l and Townl ey poi nt t o sever al

concr et e ways i n whi ch t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws have r esul t ed

i n di scr i mi nat or y t r eat ment . For exampl e, t hey al l ege t hat

t hei r mar i t al st at us has hi nder ed Schal l f r om vi si t i ng Townl ey

i n t he hospi t al , pr event ed Schal l f r om adopt i ng E. S. - T. , 4 and

subj ect ed Schal l and Townl ey t o tax bur dens f r om whi ch mar r i ed

opposi t e- sex coupl es are exempt . Because Schal l and Townl ey

hi ghl i ght speci f i c, concret e i nst ances of di scri mi nat i on r at her

4 Vi r gi ni a does not expl i ci t l y pr ohi bi t same- sex coupl esf r om adopt i ng chi l dr en. The Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws i mpose af unct i onal ban on adopt i on by same- sex coupl es because t heVi r gi ni a Code al l ows onl y mar r i ed coupl es or unmar r i edi ndi vi dual s t o adopt chi l dr en. Va. Code Ann. 63. 2- 1232( A) ( 6) .



33/98

33

t han maki ng abst r act al l egat i ons, t hei r st i gmat i c i nj ur i es ar e

l egal l y cogni zabl e.

Schal l and Townl ey s i nj ur i es ar e t r aceabl e t o Rai ney s

enf or cement of t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws. Because decl ar i ng

t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws unconst i t ut i onal and enj oi ni ng t hei r

enf or cement woul d r edr ess Schal l and Townl ey s i nj ur i es, t hey

sat i sf y st andi ng doct r i ne s t hr ee requi r ement s wi t h r espect t o

Rai ney. I n sum, each of t he Pl ai nt i f f s has standi ng as to at

l east one def endant .

I I I .

Havi ng r esol ved t he thr eshol d i ssue of whet her t he

Pl ai nt i f f s have st andi ng t o sue Schaef er and Rai ney, we now t ur n

t o t he mer i t s of t he Opponent s Four t eenth Amendment argument s.

We begi n wi t h t he i ssue of whet her t he Supreme Cour t s summary

di smi ssal i n Baker v. Nel son set t l es t hi s case. Baker came t o

t he Supreme Cour t as an appeal f r om a Mi nnesot a Supreme Cour t

deci si on, whi ch hel d t hat a st at e st at ut e t hat t he cour t

i nt er pr et ed t o bar same- sex mar r i ages di d not vi ol at e t he

Four t eent h Amendment s Due Process or Equal Prot ect i on Cl auses.

Baker v. Nel son, 191 N. W. 2d 185, 187 ( Mi nn. 1971) . At t he t i me,

28 U. S. C. 1257 requi r ed t he Supr eme Cour t t o accept appeal s of

st at e supr eme cour t cases i nvol vi ng const i t ut i onal chal l enges t o

st at e st at ut es, such as Baker . See Hi cks v. Mi r anda, 422 U. S.



34/98

34

332, 344 ( 1975) . The Cour t di smi ssed t he appeal i n a one-

sent ence opi ni on f or want of a subst ant i al f eder al quest i on.

Baker , 409 U. S. 810.

Summary di smi ssal s qual i f y as vot es on t he mer i t s of a

case. Hi cks, 422 U. S. at 344 ( quot i ng Ohi o ex r el . Eat on v.

Pr i ce, 360 U. S. 246, 247 ( 1959) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . They t her ef or e pr event l ower cour t s f r om comi ng t o

opposi t e concl usi ons on t he pr eci se i ssues pr esent ed and

necessar i l y deci ded. Mandel v. Br adl ey, 432 U. S. 173, 176

( 1977) ( per cur i am) . However , t he f act t hat Baker and t he case

at hand addr ess t he same pr eci se i ssues does not end our

i nqui r y. Summary di smi ssal s l ose t hei r bi ndi ng f or ce when

doct r i nal devel opment s i l l ust r at e t hat t he Supr eme Cour t no

l onger vi ews a quest i on as unsubst ant i al , r egar dl ess of whet her

t he Cour t expl i ci t l y over r ul es t he case. Hi cks, 422 U. S. at 344

( quot i ng Por t Aut h. Bondhol der s Pr ot ect i ve Comm. v. Por t of N. Y.

Aut h. , 387 F. 2d 259, 263 n. 3 ( 2d Ci r . 1967) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . The di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat doct r i nal

devel opment s st r i pped Baker of i t s st at us as bi ndi ng pr ecedent .

Bost i c, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 469- 70. Ever y f eder al cour t t o

consi der t hi s i ssue si nce the Supr eme Cour t deci ded Uni t ed

St ates v. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( 2013) , has r eached t he same

concl usi on. See Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003, 14- 5006, 2014 WL

3537847, at *6- 7 ( 10t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen v. Her ber t ,



35/98

35

No. 13- 4178, 2014 WL 2868044, at *7- 10 ( 10t h Ci r . J une 25,

2014) ; Love v. Beshear , No. 3: 13- cv- 750- H, 2014 WL 2957671, *2- 3

( W. D. Ky. J ul y 1, 2014) ; Baski n v. Bogan, Nos. 1: 14- cv- 00355-

RLY- TAB, 1: 14- cv- 00404- RLY- TAB, 2014 WL 2884868, at *4- 6 (S. D.

I nd. J une 25, 2014) ; Wol f v. Wal ker , No. 14- cv- 64- bbc, 2014 WL

2558444, at *4- 6 ( W. D. Wi s. J une 6, 2014) ; Whi t ewood v. Wol f ,

No. 1: 13- cv- 1861, 2014 WL 2058105, at *5- 6 (M. D. Pa. May 20,

2014) ; Gei ger v. Ki t zhaber , Nos. 6: 13- cv- 01834- MC, 6: 13- cv-

02256- MC, 2014 WL 2054264, at *1 n. 1 ( D. Or . May 19, 2014) ;

Lat t a v. Ot t er , No. 1: 13- cv- 00482- CWD, 2014 WL 1909999, at *8- 9

( D. I daho May 13, 2014) ; DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757,

773 n. 6 ( E. D. Mi ch. 2014) ; De Leon v. Per r y, 975 F. Supp. 2d

632, 647- 49 (W. D. Tex. 2014) ; McGee v. Col e, No. 3: 13- 24068,

2014 WL 321122, at *8- 10 ( S. D. W. Va. J an. 29, 2014) .

Wi ndsor concerned whether sect i on 3 of t he f ederal Def ense

of Marr i age Act ( DOMA) cont r avened t he Const i t ut i on s due

pr ocess and equal pr ot ect i on guar ant ees. Sect i on 3 def i ned

mar r i age and spouse as excl udi ng same- sex coupl es when t hose

t er ms appear ed i n f eder al st at ut es, r egul at i ons, and di r ect i ves,

r ender i ng l egal l y mar r i ed same- sex coupl es i nel i gi bl e f or myr i ad

f eder al benef i t s. 133 S. Ct . at 2683, 2694. When i t deci ded

t he case bel ow, t he Second Ci r cui t concl uded t hat Baker was no

l onger pr ecedent i al , Wi ndsor v. Uni t ed St at es, 699 F. 3d 169,

178- 79 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) , over t he di ssent s vi gor ous argument s t o



36/98

36

t he cont r ar y, see i d. at 192- 95 ( St r aub, J . , di ssent i ng i n par t

and concur r i ng i n par t ) . Despi t e t hi s di sput e, t he Supr eme

Cour t di d not di scuss Baker i n i t s opi ni on or dur i ng or al

ar gument . 5

The Supreme Cour t s wi l l i ngness t o deci de Wi ndsor wi t hout

ment i oni ng Baker speaks vol umes r egardi ng whet her Baker r emai ns

good l aw. The Cour t s devel opment of i t s due pr ocess and equal

pr ot ect i on j ur i spr udence i n t he f our decades f ol l owi ng Baker i s

even mor e i nst r uct i ve. On t he Due Process f r ont , Lawr ence v.

Texas, 539 U. S. 558 ( 2003) , and Wi ndsor ar e par t i cul ar l y

r el evant . I n Lawr ence, t he Cour t r ecogni zed t hat t he Due

Process Cl auses of t he Fi f t h and Four t eent h Amendment s af f ord

const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on t o per sonal deci si ons rel at i ng t o

mar r i age, pr ocreat i on, cont r acept i on, f ami l y r el at i onshi ps,

chi l d r ear i ng, and educat i on. . . . Per sons i n a homosexual

r el at i onshi p may seek aut onomy f or t hese pur poses, j ust as

5 The const i t ut i onal i t y of a l aw t hat pr ohi bi t ed mar r i agef r om encompassi ng same- sex r el at i onshi ps was al so at i ssue i nHol l i ngswor t h v. Per r y, 133 S. Ct . 2652 ( 2013) , a case that t heSupr eme Cour t ul t i matel y deci ded on st andi ng gr ounds. Al t hought he pet i t i oner s at t or ney at t empt ed t o i nvoke Baker dur i ng or al

ar gument , J ust i ce Gi nsbur g i nt er j ect ed: Baker v. Nel son was1971. The Supreme Cour t hadn t even deci ded t hat gender - basedcl assi f i cat i ons get any ki nd of hei ght ened scr ut i ny. . . .[ S] ame- sex i nt i mate conduct was consi dered cr i mi nal i n manyst at es i n 1971, so I don t t hi nk we can ext r act much i n Baker v.Nel son. Or al Ar gument at 11: 33, Hol l i ngswor t h v. Per r y, 133 S.Ct . 2652 ( No. 12- 144) , avai l abl e at 2013 WL 1212745.



37/98

37

het er osexual per sons do. I d. at 574. These consi der at i ons l ed

t he Cour t t o st r i ke down a Texas st at ut e t hat cr i mi nal i zed same-

sex sodomy. I d. at 563, 578- 79. The Wi ndsor Cour t based i t s

deci si on t o i nval i dat e sect i on 3 of DOMA on t he Fi f t h

Amendment s Due Pr ocess Cl ause. The Cour t concl uded t hat

sect i on 3 coul d not wi t hst and const i t ut i onal scr ut i ny because

t he pr i nci pal pur pose and t he necessary ef f ect of [ sect i on 3]

are t o demean t hose per sons who ar e i n a l awf ul same- sex

marr i age, whol i ke t he unmarr i ed same- sex coupl e i n Lawr ence

have a const i t ut i onal r i ght t o make mor al and sexual choi ces.

133 S. Ct . at 2694- 95. These cases f i r ml y posi t i on same- sex

r el at i onshi ps wi t hi n t he ambi t of t he Due Process Cl auses

pr ot ecti on.

The Cour t has al so i ssued sever al maj or equal prot ect i on

deci si ons si nce i t deci ded Baker . The Cour t s opi ni ons i n Cr ai g

v. Bor en, 429 U. S. 190 ( 1976) , and Fr ont i er o v. Ri char dson, 411

U. S. 677 ( 1973) , i dent i f i ed sex- based cl assi f i cat i ons as quasi -

suspect , causi ng t hem t o war r ant i nt er medi at e scrut i ny rat her

t han r at i onal basi s r evi ew, see Cr ai g, 429 U. S. at 218

( Rehnqui st , J . , di ssent i ng) ( coi ni ng t he t er m i nt er medi at e

l evel scrut i ny t o descri be t he Cour t s t est ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) ) . Two decades l ater , i n Romer v. Evans, t he

Supreme Cour t st r uck down a Col orado const i t ut i onal amendment

t hat pr ohi bi t ed l egi sl at i ve, execut i ve, and j udi ci al acti on



38/98

38

ai med at pr ot ect i ng gay, l esbi an, and bi sexual i ndi vi dual s f r om

di scr i mi nat i on. 517 U. S. 620, 624, 635 ( 1996) . The Cour t

concl uded t hat t he l aw vi ol at ed t he Four t eent h Amendment s Equal

Pr ot ect i on Cl ause because i t s sheer br eadt h i s so di scont i nuous

wi t h t he reasons of f ered f or i t t hat t he amendment seems

i nexpl i cabl e by anythi ng but ani mus t owar d t he cl ass i t

af f ects, causi ng t he l aw t o l ack[ ] a r at i onal r el at i onshi p t o

l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est s. I d. at 632. Fi nal l y, t he Supr eme

Cour t couched i t s deci si on i n Wi ndsor i n both due pr ocess and

equal pr ot ect i on t er ms. 133 S. Ct . at 2693, 2695. These cases

demonst r at e that , si nce Baker , t he Cour t has meani ngf ul l y

al t er ed t he way i t vi ews bot h sex and sexual or i ent at i on t hr ough

t he equal pr ot ect i on l ens.

I n l i ght of t he Supr eme Cour t s apparent abandonment of

Baker and the si gni f i cant doct r i nal devel opment s t hat occur r ed

af t er t he Cour t i ssued i t s summar y di smi ssal i n t hat case, we

decl i ne t o vi ew Baker as bi ndi ng pr ecedent and pr oceed t o t he

meat of t he Opponent s Four t eent h Amendment ar gument s.

I V.

A.

Our anal ysi s of t he Opponent s Four t eent h Amendment cl ai ms

has t wo component s. Fi r st , we ascert ai n what l evel of

const i t ut i onal scr ut i ny appl i es: ei t her rati onal basi s r evi ew



39/98


40/98

40

Connect i cut , 381 U. S. 479, 485- 86 ( 1965) ( pl aci ng t he r i ght t o

mar r y wi t hi n t he f undament al r i ght t o pr i vacy) ; see al so Ski nner

v. Okl ahoma ex r el . Wi l l i amson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 ( 1942)

( char act er i zi ng mar r i age as one of t he basi c ci vi l r i ght s of

man) ; Maynar d v. Hi l l , 125 U. S. 190, 205 ( 1888) ( cal l i ng

mar r i age t he most i mpor t ant r el at i on i n l i f e and t he

f oundat i on of t he f ami l y and of soci et y, wi t hout whi ch t her e

woul d be nei t her ci vi l i zat i on nor pr ogr ess) .

The Opponent s and Pr oponent s agree t hat mar r i age i s a

f undament al r i ght . They st r ongl y di sagr ee, however , r egar di ng

whether t hat r i ght encompasses t he r i ght t o same- sex marr i age.

The Opponent s ar gue t hat t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r y bel ongs

t o t he i ndi vi dual , who enj oys t he r i ght t o mar r y t he per son of

hi s or her choi ce. By cont r ast , t he Pr oponent s poi nt out t hat ,

t r adi t i onal l y, st at es have sanct i oned onl y man- woman mar r i ages.

They cont end t hat , i n l i ght of t hi s hi st or y, t he r i ght t o mar r y

does not i ncl ude a r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age.

Rel yi ng on Washi ngt on v. Gl ucksber g, t he Pr oponent s aver

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by not r equi r i ng a car ef ul

descr i pt i on of t he asser t ed f undament al l i ber t y i nt er est , 521

U. S. at 721 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , whi ch t hey

char act er i ze as t he r i ght t o mar r i age to anot her per son of t he

same sex, not t he r i ght t o marr y. I n Gl ucksberg, t he Supr eme

Cour t descr i bed t he r i ght at i ssue as a r i ght t o commi t sui ci de



41/98

41

wi t h anot her s assi st ance. I d. at 724. The Cour t decl i ned t o

cat egor i ze thi s r i ght as a new f undament al r i ght because i t was

not , obj ect i vel y, deepl y r oot ed i n t hi s Nat i on s hi st or y and

t r adi t i on. See i d. at 720- 21 ( quot i ng Moor e v. Ci t y of E.

Cl evel and, 431 U. S. 494, 503 ( 1977) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . The Proponent s ur ge us t o r ej ect t he r i ght t o same-

sex mar r i age f or t he same r eason.

We do not di sput e t hat st at es have ref used t o permi t same-

sex mar r i ages f or most of our count r y s hi st or y. However , t hi s

f act i s i r r el evant i n t hi s case because Gl ucksber g s anal ysi s

appl i es onl y when cour t s consi der whether t o recogni ze new

f undament al r i ght s. See i d. at 720, 727 & n. 19 ( i dent i f yi ng t he

above pr ocess as a way of expand[ i ng] t he concept of

subst ant i ve due pr ocess beyond est abl i shed f undament al r i ght s,

such as t he r i ght t o mar r y (quot i ng Col l i ns v. Ci t y of Har ker

Hei ght s, 503 U. S. 115, 125 ( 1992) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . Because we concl ude t hat t he f undament al r i ght t o

mar r y encompasses t he r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age, Gl ucksberg s

anal ysi s i s i nappl i cabl e her e.

Over t he decades, t he Supreme Cour t has demonst r at ed t hat

t he r i ght t o mar r y i s an expansi ve l i ber t y i nt er est t hat may

st r et ch t o accommodat e changi ng soci et al norms. Per haps most

not abl y, i n Lovi ng v. Vi r gi ni a, t he Supr eme Cour t i nval i dat ed a

Vi r gi ni a l aw t hat pr ohi bi t ed whi t e i ndi vi dual s f r om mar r yi ng



42/98

42

i ndi vi dual s of ot her r aces. 388 U. S. at 4. The Cour t expl ai ned

t hat [ t ] he f r eedom t o mar r y has l ong been r ecogni zed as one of

t he vi t al per sonal r i ght s es

4th circuit - virginia opinion

Documents