Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN VIRGINIA WOLF, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. SCOTT WALKER, et al., Defendants. Case No. 14-cv-64

PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to this Courts Procedure to Be Followed on Motions for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher, Kami Young and Karina Willes, Roy Badger and Garth Wangemann, Charvonne Kemp and Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf and Katharina Heyning, Salud Garcia and Pam Kleiss, William Hurtubise and Leslie (Dean) Palmer, and Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden (collectively, Plaintiffs) submit the following proposed statement of record facts. I. Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to challenge the validity under

the United States Constitution of Article XIII, 13 of the Constitution of Wisconsin, and to redress deprivations of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States under color of State law. Answer of Defendant McDonell to Amended Complaint 7 (Dkt # 61). 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, which

provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Answer of Defendant McDonell to

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 2 of 16

Amended Complaint 7 (Dkt # 61); Answer of Defendant Czarnezki to Amended Complaint 10 (Dkt # 63); Answer of Defendant Christensen to Amended Complaint 5 (Dkt # 69). 3. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3), which

provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person . . . [t]o redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. Answer of Defendant McDonell to Amended Complaint 7 (Dkt # 61); Answer of Defendant Czarnezki to Amended Complaint 10 (Dkt # 63); Answer of Defendant Christensen to Amended Complaint 5 (Dkt # 69). 4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because

Defendants Walker, Van Hollen, Chandler, Anderson, McDonell, and King reside and have offices within the district and all Defendants reside in the State of Wisconsin, and because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs Wolf, Schumacher, Trampf, Heyning, Garcia, Kleiss, Wallmann and Bordens claims occurred, and will occur, in this district. Declaration of Plaintiff Virginia Wolf in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Wolf Decl.), 2; Declaration of Plaintiff Carol Schumacher in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Schumacher Decl.), 2; Declaration of Plaintiff Judith Trampf in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Trampf Decl.), 2; Declaration of Plaintiff Katharina Heyning in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Heyning Decl.), 2; Declaration of Plaintiff Salud Garcia in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Garcia Decl.), 2; Declaration of Plaintiff Pamela Kleiss in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 3 of 16

Summary Judgment (Kleiss Decl.), 2; Declaration of Plaintiff Johannes Wallmann in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Wallmann Decl.), 2; Declaration of Plaintiff Keith Borden in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Borden Decl.), 2. Answer of Defendant McDonell to Amended Complaint 7 (Dkt # 61); Answer of Defendant Czarnezki to Amended Complaint 11 (Dkt # 63); Answer of Defendant Christensen to Amended Complaint 5 (Dkt # 69). II. Plaintiffs 5. Plaintiffs Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher, Roy Badger and Garth

Wangemann, Charvonne Kemp and Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf and Katharina Heyning, Salud Garcia and Pam Kleiss, William Hurtubise and Leslie Palmer, and Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden are all loving, committed, same-sex couples. Wolf Decl., 4; Schumacher Decl., 4; Declaration of Plaintiff Kami Young in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Young Decl.), 4; Declaration of Plaintiff Karina Willes in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Willes Decl.), 4; Declaration of Plaintiff Roy Badger in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Badger Decl.), 5; Declaration of Plaintiff Garth Wangemann in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Wangemann Decl.), 5; Declaration of Plaintiff Charvonne Kemp in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Kemp Decl.), 4; Declaration of Plaintiff Marie Carlson in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Carlson Decl.), 4; Trampf Decl., 4; Heyning Decl., 4; Garcia Decl., 4; Kleiss Decl., 4; Declaration of Plaintiff William Hurtubise in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Hurtubise Decl.), 4; Declaration of Plaintiff Leslie (Dean) Palmer in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Palmer Decl.), 4; Wallmann Decl., 4; Borden Decl., 4.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 4 of 16

6.

Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher reside in Eau Claire, WI. Wolf Decl., 2;

Schumacher Decl., 2. They left Wisconsin to enter into a legal marriage in the State of Minnesota, and they wish to have their marriage recognized in Wisconsin. Wolf Decl., 14; Schumacher Decl., 13. They are both over the age of 18, are unrelated to each other by blood or marriage, neither has been divorced in the last six months, and neither is married to anyone else. Wolf Decl., 19; Schumacher Decl., 16. They are similarly situated in all relevant respects to any different-sex couple seeking to have a validly contracted out-of-state marriage recognized in Wisconsin. Wolf Decl., 19; Schumacher Decl., 16. But for the fact that they are a same-sex couple, Wisconsin state law would regard their marriage as valid in this state. Wolf Decl., 19; Schumacher Decl., 16. See also In re Campbells Estate, 260 Wis. 625, 631, 51 N.W.2d 709, 712 (1952) (Marriages valid where celebrated are valid everywhere.) (citing Lanham v. Lanham, 136 Wis. 360, 117 N.W. 787 (1908); Owen v. Owen, 178 Wis. 609, 190 N.W. 363 (1922)). 7. Kami Young and Karina Willes reside in Milwaukee, WI. Young Decl., 2;

Willes Decl., 2. They left Wisconsin to enter into a legal marriage in the State of Minnesota, and they wish to have their marriage recognized in Wisconsin. Young Decl., 6; Willes Decl., 7. They are both over the age of 18, are unrelated to each other by blood or marriage, neither has been divorced in the last six months, and neither is married to anyone else. Young Decl., 9; Willes Decl., 11. They are similarly situated in all relevant respects to any different-sex couple seeking to have a validly contracted out-of-state marriage recognized in Wisconsin. Young Decl., 6, 9; Willes Decl., 7, 11. But for the fact that they are a same-sex couple, Wisconsin state law would regard their marriage as valid in this state. Young Decl., 9; Willes Decl., 11. See also In re Campbells Estate, 260 Wis. at 631.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 5 of 16

8.

Roy Badger and Garth Wangemann reside in Milwaukee, WI. Badger Decl., 2;

Wangemann Decl., 2. They are in a loving, committed, same-sex relationship and wish to marry in Wisconsin. Badger Decl., 4, 15; Wangemann Decl., 4, 16. They are both over the age of 18, are unrelated to each other by blood or marriage, neither has been divorced in the last six months, and neither is married to anyone else. Badger Decl., 16; Wangemann Decl., 16. They are similarly situated in all relevant respects to any different-sex couple wishing to marry in this state. Badger Decl., 16; Wangemann Decl., 16. But for the fact that they are a samesex couple, they would be permitted to marry here. Badger Decl., 16; Wangemann Decl., 16. 9. Charvonne Kemp and Marie Carlson reside in Milwaukee, WI. Kemp Decl., 2;

Carlson Decl., 2. They are in a loving, committed, same-sex relationship and wish to marry in Wisconsin. Kemp Decl., 4, 10; Carlson Decl., 4, 9. They are both over the age of 18, are unrelated to each other by blood or marriage, neither has been divorced in the last six months, and neither is married to anyone else. Kemp Decl., 14; Carlson Decl., 12. They are similarly situated in all relevant respects to any different-sex couple wishing to marry in this state. Kemp Decl., 14; Carlson Decl., 12. But for the fact that they are a same-sex couple, they would be permitted to marry here. Kemp Decl., 14; Carlson Decl., 12. 10. Judi Trampf and Katy Heyning reside in Madison, WI. Trampf Decl., 2;

Heyning Decl., 2. They are in a loving, committed, same-sex relationship and wish to marry in Wisconsin. Trampf Decl., 4, 9; Heyning Decl., 4, 8. They are both over the age of 18, are unrelated to each other by blood or marriage, neither has been divorced in the last six months, and neither is married to anyone else. Trampf Decl., 12; Heyning Decl., 11. They are similarly situated in all relevant respects to any different-sex couple wishing to marry in this

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 6 of 16

state. Trampf Decl., 12; Heyning Decl., 11. But for the fact that they are a same-sex couple, they would be permitted to marry here. Trampf Decl., 12; Heyning Decl., 11. 11. Salud Garcia and Pam Kleiss reside in Madison, WI. Garcia Decl., 2; Kleiss

Decl., 2. They are in a loving, committed, same-sex relationship and wish to marry in Wisconsin. Garcia Decl., 4; Kleiss Decl., 4. They are both over the age of 18, are unrelated to each other by blood or marriage, neither has been divorced in the last six months, and neither is married to anyone else. Garcia Decl., 13; Kleiss Decl., 14. They are similarly situated in all relevant respects to any different-sex couple wishing to marry in this state. But for the fact that they are a same-sex couple, they would be permitted to marry here. Garcia Decl., 13; Kleiss Decl., 14. 12. William Hurtubise and Leslie Dean Palmer reside in Racine, WI. Hurtubise

Decl., 2; Palmer Decl., 2. They are in a loving, committed, same-sex relationship and wish to marry in Wisconsin. Hurtubise Decl., 4, 8; Palmer Decl., 4, 8. They are both over the age of 18, are unrelated to each other by blood or marriage, neither has been divorced in the last six months, and neither is married to anyone else. Hurtubise Decl., 11; Palmer Decl., 11. They are similarly situated in all relevant respects to any different-sex couple wishing to marry in this state. Hurtubise Decl., 11; Palmer Decl., 11. But for the fact that they are a same-sex couple, they would be permitted to marry here. Hurtubise Decl., 11; Palmer Decl., 11. 13. Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden reside in Madison, WI. Wallmann Decl.,

2; Borden Decl., 2. They were married in Canada in 2007, where they had planned to live in Toronto after moving from New York, and they wish to have their marriage recognized in Wisconsin. Wallmann Decl., 4, 8; Borden Decl., 4, 8. They are both over the age of 18, are unrelated to each other by blood or marriage, neither has been divorced in the last six months,

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 7 of 16

and neither is married to anyone else. Wallmann Decl., 15; Borden Decl., 14. They are similarly situated in all relevant respects to any different-sex couple seeking to have a validly contracted out-of-state marriage recognized in Wisconsin. Wallmann Decl., 15; Borden Decl., 14. But for the fact that they are a same-sex couple, Wisconsin state law would regard their marriage as valid in this state. Wallmann Decl., 15; Borden Decl., 14. See also In re Campbells Estate, 260 Wis. at 631. III. Defendants 14. Defendant Scott Walker is the Governor of the State of Wisconsin. As Governor,

Defendant Walker has a duty under the Wisconsin Constitution to ensure that the laws of the State of Wisconsin, including the marriage ban and the marriage evasion statute, are faithfully executed. Wis. Const. Art. V, 4. 15. Defendant J.B. Van Hollen is the Attorney General of Wisconsin. As Attorney

General, Van Hollen has authority to appear for and represent the State, and to initiate a prosecution under Wisconsins marriage evasion statute. Wis. Stat. 165.25(1), (1m). 16. Defendant Richard G. Chandler is the Secretary of Revenue of the State of

Wisconsin. As Secretary, Chandler has authority to enforce the revenue code of Wisconsin, including its provisions related to the treatment for revenue purposes of marriages contracted in Wisconsin and in other jurisdictions. Wis. Stat. 15.43, 73.03. 17. Defendant Oskar Anderson is the Wisconsin State Registrar. As State Registrar,

Anderson has the authority to establish the form of a marriage license in Wisconsin, and to accept for registration and assign a date of registration to marriage documents. Wis. Stat. 69.03, 69.16(1).

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 8 of 16

18.

Defendant Gary King is the District Attorney of Eau Claire County. As District

Attorney, King has the authority to initiate a prosecution in Eau Claire County under the marriage evasion statute. Wis. Stat. 978.05(1). 19. Defendant John Chisholm is the District Attorney of Milwaukee County. As

District Attorney, Chisholm has the authority to initiate a prosecution in Milwaukee County under the marriage evasion statute. Wis. Stat. 978.05(1). 20. Defendant Joseph J. Czarnezki is the Clerk of Milwaukee County. As County

Clerk, Czarnezki has the authority to issue or withhold a marriage license, and to ensure compliance with laws that prohibit the issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Defendant Czarnezki has no authority to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Answer of Defendant Czarnezki to Amended Complaint 26 (Dkt. # 63). Wis. Stat. 765.05, 765.12, 765.20. 21. Defendant Wendy Christensen is the Clerk of Racine County. As County Clerk,

Christensen has the authority to issue or withhold a marriage license, and to ensure compliance with laws that prohibit the issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Wis. Stat. 765.05, 765.12, 765.20. 22. Defendant Scott McDonell is the Clerk of Dane County. As County Clerk,

McDonell has the authority to issue or withhold a marriage license, and to ensure compliance with laws that prohibit the issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Defendant McDonell has no authority to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Answer of

Defendant McDonnell to Amended Complaint 10 (Dkt # 61); Wis. Stat. 765.05, 765.12, 765.20.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 9 of 16

IV.

Additional Facts 23. Plaintiffs Kami Young and Karina Willes face an imminent, irreparable harm

stemming from the marriage ban. Kami is due to deliver the couples first child, a daughter, on April 3. Young Decl., 7; Willes Decl., 8. Although both Kami and Karina intend to love and raise the child together, the State of Wisconsin will not recognize Karina as the babys mother. In fact, as far as the law is concerned, Karina and the baby will be strangers. Young Decl. 7-8; Willes Decl., 8-9. If Kami and Karina were a different-sex couple and allowed to marry, Karina would automatically be recognized as the babys parent. See Wis. Stat. 891.41(1)(a) (presumption of parenthood for children born during a marriage). Young Decl., 8; Willes Decl., 9. 24. And although adoption should be unnecessary if Kami and Karinas marriage

were recognized, Wisconsin law does not allow Karina to secure her parental rights through a stepparent adoption. Wis. Stat. 48.82 (restricting stepparent adoption to a spouse of a childs parent); Young Decl., 8; Willes Decl., 10. 25. Nor will Wisconsin allow Karina to take advantage of the second-parent adoption

process available in many other states. See Nadia Stewart, Adoption by Same-Sex Couples and the Use of the Representation Reinforcement Theory to Protect the Rights of the Children, 17 TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 347, 354-56 (2011) (explaining that second-parent adoption allows adoption of a child by an unmarried parents partner without requiring the first parent to relinquish parental rights). Because of the marriage ban, Kami and Karina will be deprived of access to the same legal protections of their parental relationship with their child that are available to married couples, for no other reason than that they are the same sex. Young Decl. 8; Willes Decl., 10.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 10 of 16

26.

Plaintiffs William Hurtubise and Leslie Dean Palmer are suffering a similar

harm. Wisconsins adoption statute provides a straightforward process for joint adoption that is limited to married couples. Wis. Stat. 48.82 (restricting joint adoption to married couples). For this reason, two of their children were adopted only by Dean, with Bill as legal guardian. Hurtubise Decl., 5, 9; Palmer Decl., 5, 9. They want to adopt their third child, over whom they are both legal guardians, but their unmarried status remains an obstacle. Hurtubise Decl., 5, 9; Palmer Decl., 5, 9. Because of the marriage ban, Bill and Dean cannot easily access the same protections for children that are available to married couples. Hurtubise Decl., 9; Palmer Decl., 9. 27. Furthermore, Plaintiffs Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher and Kami Young

and Karina Willes face the threat of prosecution under Wis. Stat. 765.30(1). That statute makes it a criminal offense to leave the State of Wisconsin to enter into a marriage that is considered void or prohibited here. Id. Both couples left Wisconsin to marry in Minnesota.

Wolf Decl., 14; Schumacher Decl., 13; Young Decl., 6; Willes Decl. 7. 28. Moreover, all Plaintiff couples are being harmed irreparably by the State of

Wisconsins denial to them of the freedom to marry. Wolf Decl., 10-12; Schumacher Decl., 8-10; Young Decl., 6-8; Willes Decl., 7, 9-10; Badger Decl., 8-15; Wangemann Decl., 5-7, 10-15; Kemp Decl., 11-13; Carlson Decl., 9-11; Trampf Decl., 6-11; Heyning Decl., 6-10; Garcia Decl., 10-12; Kleiss Decl., 12-13; Hurtubise Decl., 810; Palmer Decl., 8-10; Wallmann Decl., 12-14; Borden Decl., 11-13. 29. First, Plaintiff couples are denied all of the state law protections and obligations

that are reserved to different-sex married couples in the State of Wisconsin. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. 891.41 (presumption of parenthood for child born to married parents); 48.82 (right to adopt a

10

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 11 of 16

spouses child and right of married couples to jointly adopt a child); 54.56 (eligibility for visitation rights for the surviving spouse of a deceased parent of a minor child); 71.07(6) (state married persons credit for tax purposes); 71.05(23)(b) (certain personal tax exemptions applicable to spouses); 71.05(6)(b) 10 (state tax deduction for self-employed persons for costs of medical insurance for spouse); 71.05(6)(b) 26 (state tax deduction for long-term care insurance for a spouse); 45.61(2) (surviving spouses of veterans eligible for burial in Wisconsin veterans cemeteries); 895.04(4) (right to seek damages for loss of society and companionship in connection with wrongful death of a spouse); 610.70(f) (protection against disclosure by insurers of health information obtained from an individuals spouse); 111.31(1) (protection against discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status); 224.77(1)(o) (protection against discrimination in mortgage lending on the basis of marital status); 106.50(1) (protection against discrimination in housing on the basis of marital status); 766.31(2) (property of spouses is presumed to be marital property); 45.51(2) (eligibility of spouses and surviving spouses of veterans for admission to veterans homes); 861.01(1) (surviving spouse retains undivided onehalf interest in each item of marital property). See also Kemp Decl., 10-13; Carlson Decl., 9-11; Trampf Decl., 6-11; Heyning Decl., 6-10; Hurtubise Decl., 9; Palmer Decl., 9; Wallmann Decl., 12-14; Borden Decl., 11-13. 30. The unmarried Plaintiffs are also denied all federal spousal protections and

obligations. See United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2683 (2013) (citing U.S. Govt Accountability Office, GAO-04-353R, Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report 1 (2004) describing more than 1,000 federal laws in which marital or spousal status is addressed as a matter of federal law.); see also, e.g., Kemp Decl., 12; Carlson Decl., 11; Trampf Decl., 6-11; Heyning Decl., 9; Hurtubise Decl., 8; Palmer Decl., 8).

11

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 12 of 16

31.

The married Plaintiffs are denied those federal spousal protections and obligations

that are reserved to couples whose marriages are recognized in their state of residence. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. 825.122(b) (ability to take time off of work to care for a sick spouse under the Family & Medical Leave Act); 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(A)(i) (access to a spouses social security benefits). See also U.S. Social Sec. Administration Program Operations Manual System, GN 00210.100 (Windsor Same-Sex Marriage Claims), GN 00210.400 (Same-Sex Marriage Benefits for Surviving Spouses), https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200210000; see also Wallmann Decl. 12-13; Borden Decl., 11-12. 32. Further, the unmarried Plaintiffs were deterred from leaving the state to marry and

thereby access some federal benefits by the fear of prosecution under Wis. Stat. 765.30(1). Badger Decl., 17; Wangemann Decl., 17; Kemp Decl., 10; Carlson Decl., 9; Trampf Decl., 11; Heyning Decl., 10; Garcia Decl., 4; Kleiss Decl., 4; Hurtubise Decl., 8; Palmer Decl., 8. 33. Second, all Plaintiff couples suffer the ongoing dignitary harm of the States

denigration of their relationships and their families. Wolf Decl., 10-12; Schumacher Decl., 8-10; Young Decl., 6-8; Willes Decl., 7, 9-10; Badger Decl., 8-15; Wangemann Decl., 5-7, 10-15; Kemp Decl., 10-13; Carlson Decl., 9-11; Trampf Decl., 6-11; Heyning Decl., 6-10; Garcia Decl., 7-8; Kleiss Decl., 7-8; Hurtubise Decl., 8-10; Palmer Decl., 8-10; Wallmann Decl., 12-14; Borden Decl., 11-13. 34. By withholding from these couples the respect, recognition, and support that only

marriage confers on a relationship, Wisconsin stigmatizes these couples as unworthy of the opportunity to express and legally embody their commitment in the most serious way that society provides. Wolf Decl., 10-12; Schumacher Decl., 8-10; Young Decl., 6-8; Willes Decl.,

12

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 13 of 16

7, 9-10; Badger Decl., 8-15; Wangemann Decl., 5-7, 10-15; Kemp Decl., 10-13; Carlson Decl., 9-11; Trampf Decl., 6-11; Heyning Decl., 6-10; Garcia Decl., 11-13; Kleiss Decl., 12-14; Hurtubise Decl., 8-10; Palmer Decl., 8-10; Wallmann Decl., 1214; Borden Decl., 11-13. 35. The marriage ban relegates Plaintiffs loving, committed relationships to a

second-class status below that accorded to different-sex married couples. Wolf Decl., 10-12; Schumacher Decl., 8-10; Young Decl., 6-8; Willes Decl., 7, 9-10; Badger Decl., 815; Wangemann Decl., 5-7, 10-15; Kemp Decl., 10-13; Carlson Decl., 9-11; Trampf Decl., 6-11; Heyning Decl., 6-10; Garcia Decl., 10-12; Kleiss Decl., 12-13; Hurtubise Decl., 8-10; Palmer Decl., 8-10; Wallmann Decl., 12-14; Borden Decl., 11-13. 36. harm. The availability of domestic partnerships in Wisconsin does not ameliorate this

Domestic partnerships are not always well understood, and are not accorded the same

degree of respect as marriage. Badger Decl., 15; Wangemann Decl., 6; Trampf Decl., 9; Heyning Decl., 8; Wallmann Decl. 14; Borden Decl., 13. For example, on at least one occasion, Plaintiff Judi Trampf was asked to show documentation to prove that she was in a domestic partnership. Trampf Decl., 9; Heyning Decl., 8. 37. This harm extends to the children of Plaintiff couples Salud Garcia and Pam

Kleiss (Garcia Decl., 8; Kleiss Decl., 8), Bill Hurtubise and Dean Palmer (Hurtubise Decl., 9-10; Palmer Decl., 9-10), Charvonne Kemp and Marie Carlson (Kemp Decl., 11; Carlson Decl., 10), and the children and grandchildren of Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher, who are subjected to the humiliation of the States refusal to recognize their

13

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 14 of 16

families and family bonds as equally important, enduring, and meaningful as those of differentsex parents and their children. Wolf Decl., 17; Schumacher Decl., 14. 38. Third, Plaintiff couples are harmed because the marriage ban invites other actors,

from employers to family members, to discriminate against Plaintiffs and their families. Kemp Decl., 12; Carlson Decl., 11; Trampf Decl., 6-8; Heyning Decl., 6-7. For example, when Carol Schumacher was employed by the city of Eau Claire, she was not permitted to take family leave when she needed time off to care for Virginia Wolf. Wolf Decl., 11; Schumacher Decl., 9. And on several occasions in the 1980s, Carol and Virginia tried to sign up for a family membership at the YMCA in Eau Claire, but their applications were denied because the YMCAs policy was to refuse to recognize a same-sex couple as a family. Wolf Decl., 10; Schumacher Decl., 8. Salud Garcia repeatedly asked her employer to consider extending health benefits to same-sex domestic partners on the same terms as different-sex married spouses, but for ten years her employer refused. Garcia Decl., 9; Kleiss Decl., 9. 39. The harm caused by this discrimination is particularly acute in the health care

setting, where Plaintiffs have experienced a lack of respect for their relationships and a disregard for their choices. Trampf Decl., 6-8; Heyning Decl., 6-7. In 2011, Garth Wangemann was in a medically induced coma for more than a month. Despite having signed a power of attorney designating Roy Badger as his health care decision maker, Garths father spoke to attorneys about overriding Roys authority. Badger Decl., 10-12; Wangemann Decl., 8-12. In 2002, when Judi Trampf and Katy Heyning were in New Orleans, Katy had a seizure and was unconscious. Trampf Decl., 6; Heyning Decl., 6. A hospital employee told Judi that she would not be permitted to make medical decisions on Katys behalf because she did not have their signed power of attorney in her hand (the document was at home in Madison). Trampf

14

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 15 of 16

Decl., 6; Heyning Decl., 6. Carol Schumacher was refused admittance into the treatment area of an emergency room to comfort Virginia Wolf when Virginia was experiencing chest pains, ostensibly because Carol was not legally a family member. Schumacher Decl., 10. 40. Plaintiffs Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden are suffering from the unique

dignitary and tangible harm of having their existing marriage nullified under Wisconsin law. Wallmann Decl., 11-14; Borden Decl., 10-13. After living in a legally recognized marriage in California, where they moved when Johannes was offered a full-time teaching job, for more than four years, and after building a life together in reliance on the protections and benefits that marriage provides, they are now considered legal strangers to each other by the state of Wisconsin. Wallmann Decl., 8, 11-14; Borden Decl., 8, 10-13. 41. The purpose of the marriage amendment was to permanently deprive same-sex

couples of the right to marry or to have their marriages recognized in Wisconsin. The legislative sponsors of the amendment specifically noted that the freedom to marry for same sex couples was being recognized in other states and offered the amendment as a way to prevent same-sex marriage from being legalized in this state. Declaration of Laurence J. Dupuis (Dupuis Decl.), Ex 1 (CoSponsorship Memo). Thus, the purpose of the amendment was to treat samesex couples differently from different-sex couples simply because of a desire to disfavor those couples.

15

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 72 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 16 of 16

Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 24, 2014 JOHN A. KNIGHT American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 201-9740 jaknight@aclu.org LAURENCE J. DUPUIS SBN: 1029261 American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation 207 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 325 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 (414) 272-4032 ldupuis@aclu-wi.org * admitted pro hac vice By: /s Gretchen E. Helfrich Counsel for Plaintiffs JAMES D. ESSEKS* American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2623 jesseks@aclu.org HANS GERMANN* GRETCHEN E. HELFRICH* FRANK DICKERSON* Mayer Brown LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637 (312) 782-0600 hgermann@mayerbrown.com ghelfrich@mayerbrown.com fdickerson@mayerbrown.com

16