You are on page 1of 98

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T


No. 14-1167


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

Plaintiffs Appellees,

J OANNE HARRI S; J ESSI CA DUFF; CHRI STY BERGHOFF; VI CTORI A
KI DD, on behal f of t hemsel ves and al l ot her s si mi l ar l y
si 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 he
Cl 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 ar
of Vi t al Recor 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 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; NORTH
CAROLI NA VALUES COALI TI ON; LI BERTY, LI FE, AND LAW
FOUNDATI ON; SOCI AL SCI ENCE PROFESSORS; FAMI LY RESEARCH
COUNCI L; VI RGI NI A CATHOLI C CONFERENCE, LLC; CENTER FOR
CONSTI 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

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; STATE
OF ARI ZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF I DAHO; STATE OF
LOUI SI ANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLI NA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMI NG; WALLBUI LDERS, LLC; LI BERTY
COUNSEL; AMERI CAN COLLEGE OF PEDI ATRI CI ANS; SCHOLARS OF
HI STORY AND RELATED DI SCI PLI NES; AMERI CAN LEADERSHI P FUND;
ROBERT P. GEORGE; SHERI F GI RGI S; RYAN T. ANDERSON; PAUL
MCHUGH; UNI TED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLI C BI SHOPS;
NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF EVANGELI CALS; CHURCH OF J ESUS CHRI ST
OF LATTERDAY SAINTS; THE ETHI CS & RELI GI OUS LI BERTY
COMMI SSI ON OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTI ST CONVENTI ON; LUTHERAN
CHURCHMISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS
LI BERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATI ON AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVI D
BOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERI CA; THE
FAMI LY FOUNDATI ON OF VI RGI NI A,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ant ,

CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEE
BOLLI NGER; ERWI N CHEMERI NSKY; WALTER DELLI NGER; MI CHAEL C.
DORF; LEE EPSTEI N; DANI EL FARBER; BARRY FRI EDMAN; MI CHAEL
J AY GERHARDT, Pr of essor ; DEBORAH HELLMAN; J OHN CALVI N
J EFFRI ES, J R. ; LAWRENCE LESSI G; WI LLI AM MARSHALL; FRANK
MI CHELMAN; J ANE S. SCHACTER; CHRI STOPHER H. SCHROEDER;
SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVI D STRAUSS; LAURENCE
H. TRI BE, Pr of essor ; WI LLI AM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVESLDN; THE
AMERI CAN MI LI TARY PARTNER ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CAN
SOCI OLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; VI RGI NI A CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW
PROFESSORS; 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 A
PSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; EQUALI TY NC; SOUTH CAROLI NA
QUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHERBORNE; MARCI E
FISHERBORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARI GNAN;
MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLI E ZANAGLI O; LEE KNI GHT
CAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAI G J OHNSON; ESMERALDA
MEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTERMEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;
CONSTI TUTI ONAL ACCOUNTABI LI TY CENTER; HI STORI ANS OF
MARRI 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 K
HARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LI NDA K. KERBER; ALI CE
KESSLERHARRIS; 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 OF
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 2 of 98
3

LESBI ANS AND GAYS, I NC. ; KERRY ABRAMS, Al ber t Cl ar k 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 ver si t y of Ri chmond;
J OAN HEI FETZ HOLLI NGER, J ohn and El i zabet h Boal t Lect ur er 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, Pr of essor of Law, Uni ver si t y of
Cal i f or ni a, Davi s School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATI ON FUND, I NC. ; NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNI VERSI TY SCHOOL OF
LAW 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 SSA
LAMB SAUNDERS; NEI L S. SI EGEL; J ANA B. SI NGER; HI STORI ANS OF
ANTIGAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS
UNI TED FOR SEPARATI ON OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: A
J EWI SH PARTNERSHI P FOR J USTI CE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN' S
ZI 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 CAN
CI TI ZENS LEAGUE; J EWI SH SOCI AL POLI CY ACTI ON NETWORK;
KESHET; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCHES; MORE LI GHT
PRESBYTERI 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 FULL
PARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; SI KH AMERI CAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATI ON FUND; SOCI ETY FOR HUMANI STI C
J 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 SCHOOL
SEXUALI TY AND GENDER LAW CLI NI C; BI SHOPS OF THE EPI SCOPAL
CHURCH I N VI RGI NI A; CENTRAL ATLANTI C CONFERENCE OF THE
UNI TED CHURCH OF CHRI ST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERI CAN
RABBI S; MORMONS FOR EQUALI TY; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL
ASSOCI ATI ON; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL COLLEGE AND J EWI SH
RECONSTRUCTI 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; COVENANT
NETWORK OF PRESBYTERI ANS; METHODI ST FEDERATI ON FOR SOCI AL
ACTI 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 OF
REFORM J UDAI SM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANI ZATI ONS REPRESENTI NG
EMPLOYERS; 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 OF
MARYLAND; STATE OF NEWHAMPSHI RE; STATE OF NEWMEXI CO; STATE
OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF
WASHI NGTON; GARY J . GATES; NATI ONAL AND WESTERN STATES
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 3 of 98
4

WOMEN' S RI GHTS ORGANI ZATI ONS; VI RGI NI A CHAPTER OF THE
AMERI CAN ACADEMY OF MATRI MONI AL LAWYERS; THE NATI ONAL
WOMEN' S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RI GHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;
NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF WOMEN LAWYERS; NATI ONAL PARTNERSHI P
FOR WOMEN & FAMI LI ES; SOUTHWEST WOMEN' S LAW CENTER; WOMEN' S
LAW PROJ ECT; PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCI ATED WI TH THE WI LLI AMS
I NSTI TUTE; BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR I NDI VI DUAL FREEDOM;
LEADERSHI P CONFERENCE ON CI VI L AND HUMAN RI GHTS; PUBLI C
I NTEREST ORGANI ZATI ONS; BAR ASSOCI ATI ONS; FAMI LY LAW AND
CONFLI CT OF LAWS PROFESSORS; GAY AND LESBI AN ADVOCATES AND
DEFENDERS; 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 TTLE
RI VER UCC; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCH OF NORTHERN
VI 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 TED
CHURCH OF CHRI ST OF FREDERI CKSBURG; UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST
CHURCH OF LOUDOUN; ANDREW MERTZ; REV. MARI E HULM ADAM; REV.
MARTY ANDERSON; REV ROBI N ANDERSON; REV. VERNE ARENS; RABBI
LI 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. TOM
GERSTENLAUER; 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. AMY
SCHWARTZMAN; 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: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 4 of 98
5



No. 14-1169


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

Plaintiffs Appellees,

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

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 ar
of 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 he
Cl 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 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; NORTH
CAROLI NA VALUES COALI TI ON; LI BERTY, LI FE, AND LAW
FOUNDATI ON; SOCI AL SCI ENCE PROFESSORS; FAMI LY RESEARCH
COUNCI 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; STATE
OF ARI ZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF I DAHO; STATE OF
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 5 of 98
6

LOUI SI ANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLI NA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMI NG; WALLBUI LDERS, LLC; LI BERTY
COUNSEL; AMERI CAN COLLEGE OF PEDI ATRI CI ANS; SCHOLARS OF
HI STORY AND RELATED DI SCI PLI NES; AMERI CAN LEADERSHI P FUND;
ROBERT P. GEORGE; SHERI F GI RGI S; RYAN T. ANDERSON; PAUL
MCHUGH; UNI TED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLI C BI SHOPS;
NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF EVANGELI CALS; CHURCH OF J ESUS CHRI ST
OF LATTERDAY SAINTS; THE ETHI CS & RELI GI OUS LI BERTY
COMMI SSI ON OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTI ST CONVENTI ON; LUTHERAN
CHURCHMISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS
LI BERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATI ON AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVI D
BOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERI CA; THE
FAMI LY FOUNDATI ON OF VI RGI NI A,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ant ,

CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEE
BOLLI NGER; ERWI N CHEMERI NSKY; WALTER DELLI NGER; MI CHAEL C.
DORF; LEE EPSTEI N; DANI EL FARBER; BARRY FRI EDMAN; MI CHAEL
J AY GERHARDT, Pr of essor ; DEBORAH HELLMAN; J OHN CALVI N
J EFFRI ES, J R. ; LAWRENCE LESSI G; WI LLI AM MARSHALL; FRANK
MI CHELMAN; J ANE S. SCHACTER; CHRI STOPHER H. SCHROEDER;
SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVI D STRAUSS; LAURENCE
H. TRI BE, Pr of essor ; WI LLI AM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVESLDN; THE
AMERI CAN MI LI TARY PARTNER ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CAN
SOCI OLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; VI RGI NI A CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW
PROFESSORS; 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 A
PSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; EQUALI TY NC; SOUTH CAROLI NA
QUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHERBORNE; MARCI E
FISHERBORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARIGNAN;
MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLI E ZANAGLI O; LEE KNI GHT
CAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAI G J OHNSON; ESMERALDA
MEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTERMEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;
CONSTI TUTI ONAL ACCOUNTABI LI TY CENTER; HI STORI ANS OF
MARRI 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 K
HARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LI NDA K. KERBER; ALI CE
KESSLERHARRIS; 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 OF
LESBI ANS AND GAYS, I NC. ; KERRY ABRAMS, Al ber t Cl ar k 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;
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 6 of 98
7

MEREDI TH HARBACH, Pr of essor of Law, Uni ver si t y of Ri chmond;
J OAN HEI FETZ HOLLI NGER, J ohn and El i zabet h Boal t Lect ur er 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, Pr of essor of Law, Uni ver si t y of
Cal i f or ni a, Davi s School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATI ON FUND, I NC. ; NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNI VERSI TY SCHOOL OF
LAW 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 SSA
LAMB SAUNDERS; NEI L S. SI EGEL; J ANA B. SI NGER; HI STORI ANS OF
ANTIGAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS
UNI TED FOR SEPARATI ON OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: A
J EWI SH PARTNERSHI P FOR J USTI CE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN' S
ZI 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 CAN
CI TI ZENS LEAGUE; J EWI SH SOCI AL POLI CY ACTI ON NETWORK;
KESHET; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCHES; MORE LI GHT
PRESBYTERI 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 FULL
PARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; SI KH AMERI CAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATI ON FUND; SOCI ETY FOR HUMANI STI C
J 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 SCHOOL
SEXUALI TY AND GENDER LAW CLI NI C; BI SHOPS OF THE EPI SCOPAL
CHURCH I N VI RGI NI A; CENTRAL ATLANTI C CONFERENCE OF THE
UNI TED CHURCH OF CHRI ST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERI CAN
RABBI S; MORMONS FOR EQUALI TY; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL
ASSOCI ATI ON; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL COLLEGE AND J EWI SH
RECONSTRUCTI 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; COVENANT
NETWORK OF PRESBYTERI ANS; METHODI ST FEDERATI ON FOR SOCI AL
ACTI 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 OF
REFORM J UDAI SM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANI ZATI ONS REPRESENTI NG
EMPLOYERS; 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 OF
MARYLAND; STATE OF NEWHAMPSHI RE; STATE OF NEWMEXI CO; STATE
OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF
WASHI NGTON; GARY J . GATES; NATI ONAL AND WESTERN STATES
WOMEN' S RI GHTS ORGANI ZATI ONS; VI RGI NI A CHAPTER OF THE
AMERI CAN ACADEMY OF MATRI MONI AL LAWYERS; THE NATI ONAL
WOMEN' S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RI GHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 7 of 98
8

NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF WOMEN LAWYERS; NATI ONAL PARTNERSHI P
FOR WOMEN & FAMI LI ES; SOUTHWEST WOMEN' S LAW CENTER; WOMEN' S
LAW PROJ ECT; PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCI ATED WI TH THE WI LLI AMS
I NSTI TUTE; BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR I NDI VI DUAL FREEDOM;
LEADERSHI P CONFERENCE ON CI VI L AND HUMAN RI GHTS; PUBLI C
I NTEREST ORGANI ZATI ONS; BAR ASSOCI ATI ONS; FAMI LY LAW AND
CONFLI CT OF LAWS PROFESSORS; GAY AND LESBI AN ADVOCATES AND
DEFENDERS; 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 TTLE
RI VER UCC; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCH OF NORTHERN
VI 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 TED
CHURCH OF CHRI ST OF FREDERI CKSBURG; UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST
CHURCH OF LOUDOUN; ANDREW MERTZ; REV. MARI E HULM ADAM; REV.
MARTY ANDERSON; REV ROBI N ANDERSON; REV. VERNE ARENS; RABBI
LI 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. TOM
GERSTENLAUER; 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. AMY
SCHWARTZMAN; 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: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 8 of 98
9



No. 14-1173


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

Plaintiffs Appellees,

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

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 he
Cl 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 al
Recor 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 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.

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

DAVI D A. ROBI NSON; ALAN J . HAWKI NS; J ASON S. CARROLL; NORTH
CAROLI NA VALUES COALI TI ON; LI BERTY, LI FE, AND LAW
FOUNDATI ON; SOCI AL SCI ENCE PROFESSORS; FAMI LY RESEARCH
COUNCI 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; STATE
OF ARI ZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF I DAHO; STATE OF
LOUI SI ANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLI NA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMI NG; WALLBUI LDERS, LLC; LI BERTY
COUNSEL; AMERI CAN COLLEGE OF PEDI ATRI CI ANS; SCHOLARS OF
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 9 of 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; PAUL
MCHUGH; UNI TED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLI C BI SHOPS;
NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF EVANGELI CALS; CHURCH OF J ESUS CHRI ST
OF LATTERDAY SAINTS; THE ETHI CS & RELI GI OUS LI BERTY
COMMI SSI ON OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTI ST CONVENTI ON; LUTHERAN
CHURCHMISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS
LI BERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATI ON AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVI D
BOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERI CA; THE
FAMI LY FOUNDATI ON OF VI RGI NI A,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ant ,

CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEE
BOLLI NGER; ERWI N CHEMERI NSKY; WALTER DELLI NGER; MI CHAEL C.
DORF; LEE EPSTEI N; DANI EL FARBER; BARRY FRI EDMAN; MI CHAEL
J AY GERHARDT, Pr of essor ; DEBORAH HELLMAN; J OHN CALVI N
J EFFRI ES, J R. ; LAWRENCE LESSI G; WI LLI AM MARSHALL; FRANK
MI CHELMAN; J ANE S. SCHACTER; CHRI STOPHER H. SCHROEDER;
SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVI D STRAUSS; LAURENCE
H. TRI BE, Pr of essor ; WI LLI AM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVESLDN; THE
AMERI CAN MI LI TARY PARTNER ASSOCI ATI ON; THE AMERI CAN
SOCI OLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; VI RGI NI A CONSTI TUTI ONAL LAW
PROFESSORS; 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 A
PSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON; EQUALI TY NC; SOUTH CAROLI NA
QUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHERBORNE; MARCI E
FISHERBORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARIGNAN;
MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLI E ZANAGLI O; LEE KNI GHT
CAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAI G J OHNSON; ESMERALDA
MEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTERMEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;
CONSTI TUTI ONAL ACCOUNTABI LI TY CENTER; HI STORI ANS OF
MARRI 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 K
HARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LI NDA K. KERBER; ALI CE
KESSLERHARRIS; 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 OF
LESBI ANS AND GAYS, I NC. ; KERRY ABRAMS, Al ber t Cl ar k 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 ver si t y of Ri chmond;
J OAN HEI FETZ HOLLI NGER, J ohn and El i zabet h Boal t Lect ur er 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, Pr of essor of Law, Uni ver si t y of
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 10 of 98
11

Cal i f or ni a, Davi s School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATI ON FUND, I NC. ; NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNI VERSI TY SCHOOL OF
LAW 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 SSA
LAMB SAUNDERS; NEI L S. SI EGEL; J ANA B. SI NGER; HI STORI ANS OF
ANTIGAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS
UNI TED FOR SEPARATI ON OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: A
J EWI SH PARTNERSHI P FOR J USTI CE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN' S
ZI 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 CAN
CI TI ZENS LEAGUE; J EWI SH SOCI AL POLI CY ACTI ON NETWORK;
KESHET; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCHES; MORE LI GHT
PRESBYTERI 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 FULL
PARTI CI PATI ON; RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTE, I NC. ; SI KH AMERI CAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATI ON FUND; SOCI ETY FOR HUMANI STI C
J 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 SCHOOL
SEXUALI TY AND GENDER LAW CLI NI C; BI SHOPS OF THE EPI SCOPAL
CHURCH I N VI RGI NI A; CENTRAL ATLANTI C CONFERENCE OF THE
UNI TED CHURCH OF CHRI ST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERI CAN
RABBI S; MORMONS FOR EQUALI TY; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL
ASSOCI ATI ON; RECONSTRUCTI ONI ST RABBI NI CAL COLLEGE AND J EWI SH
RECONSTRUCTI 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; COVENANT
NETWORK OF PRESBYTERI ANS; METHODI ST FEDERATI ON FOR SOCI AL
ACTI 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 OF
REFORM J UDAI SM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANI ZATI ONS REPRESENTI NG
EMPLOYERS; 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 OF
MARYLAND; STATE OF NEWHAMPSHI RE; STATE OF NEWMEXI CO; STATE
OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF
WASHI NGTON; GARY J . GATES; NATI ONAL AND WESTERN STATES
WOMEN' S RI GHTS ORGANI ZATI ONS; VI RGI NI A CHAPTER OF THE
AMERI CAN ACADEMY OF MATRI MONI AL LAWYERS; THE NATI ONAL
WOMEN' S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RI GHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;
NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF WOMEN LAWYERS; NATI ONAL PARTNERSHI P
FOR WOMEN & FAMI LI ES; SOUTHWEST WOMEN' S LAW CENTER; WOMEN' S
LAW PROJ ECT; PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCI ATED WI TH THE WI LLI AMS
I NSTI TUTE; BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR I NDI VI DUAL FREEDOM;
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 11 of 98
12

LEADERSHI P CONFERENCE ON CI VI L AND HUMAN RI GHTS; PUBLI C
I NTEREST ORGANI ZATI ONS; BAR ASSOCI ATI ONS; FAMI LY LAW AND
CONFLI CT OF LAWS PROFESSORS; GAY AND LESBI AN ADVOCATES AND
DEFENDERS; 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 TTLE
RI VER UCC; METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY CHURCH OF NORTHERN
VI 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 TED
CHURCH OF CHRI ST OF FREDERI CKSBURG; UNI TARI AN UNI VERSALI ST
CHURCH OF LOUDOUN; ANDREW MERTZ; REV. MARI E HULM ADAM; REV.
MARTY ANDERSON; REV ROBI N ANDERSON; REV. VERNE ARENS; RABBI
LI 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. TOM
GERSTENLAUER; 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. AMY
SCHWARTZMAN; 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 n
Di 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 or e NI EMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Ci r cui t J udges.


Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 12 of 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 y
opi ni on, i n whi ch J udge Gr egor y j oi ned. J udge Ni emeyer wr ot e a
separ 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 NG
FREEDOM, 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 uar t Al an Raphael , OFFI CE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VI RGI NI A, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ant
J anet M. Rai ney. Theodor e B. Ol son, GI BSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER,
LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Appel l ees. J ames D. Esseks, AMERI CAN
CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or I nt er venor s. ON
BRIEF: 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 ANCE
DEFENDI 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 or ney Gener al , Rhodes B. Ri t enour , Deput y
At t or ney Gener al , Al l yson K. Tysi nger , Seni or Assi st ant At t or ney
Gener al , Cat her i ne Cr ooks Hi l l , Seni or Assi st ant At t or ney
Gener al , Tr evor S. Cox, Deput y Sol i ci t or Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VI RGI NI A, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ant
J 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 er emy 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 car o, 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 L
LI 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 ON
FOUNDATI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k; Gr egor y 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 , Mar k P. Gaber , J ENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or I nt er venor s. Davi d A.
Robi nson, Nor t h Haven, Connect i cut , as Ami cus. Lynn D. War dl e,
BRI GHAM YOUNG UNI VERSI TY LAW SCHOOL, Pr ovo, 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 . Debor ah J . Dewar t , DEBORAH J .
DEWART, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Swansbor o, Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Ami ci
Nor t h Car ol i na Val ues Coal i t i on and Li ber t y, Li f e, and Law
Foundat i on. St eve 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
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 13 of 98
14

Li nt on, Nor t hbr ook, I l l i noi s, f or Ami cus Fami l y Resear ch
Counci l . J ohn C. East man, Ant hony T. Caso, Cent er f or
Const i t ut i onal J ur i spr udence, CHAPMAN UNI VERSI TY DALE E. FOWLER
SCHOOL OF LAW, Or ange, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami ci Vi r gi ni a Cat hol i c
Conf 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 ant
At t or ney Gener al , El ber t Li n, Sol i ci t or Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE
WEST VI RGI NI A ATTORNEY GENERAL, Char l est on, West Vi r gi ni a, f or
Ami 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 Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I ndi anapol i s,
I ndi ana; Lut her St r ange, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, Mont gomer y, Al abama; Mi chael C.
Ger aght y, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
ALASKA, J uneau, Al aska; Thomas C. Hor ne, At t or ney Gener al ,
OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARI ZONA, Phoeni x, Ar i zona;
J ohn Sut her s, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF COLORADO, Denver , Col or ado; Lawr ence G. Wasden, At t or ney
Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF I DAHO, Boi se, I daho;
J ames D. " Buddy" Cal dwel l , At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUI SI ANA, Bat on Rouge, Loui si ana; Ti mot hy
C. Fox, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MONTANA, Hel ena, Mont ana; J on Br uni ng, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, Li ncol n, Nebr aska; E. Scot t
Pr ui t t , At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
OKLAHOMA, Okl ahoma Ci t y, Okl ahoma; Al an Wi l son, At t or ney
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 h
Dakot a; Sean Reyes, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF UTAH, Sal t Lake Ci t y, Ut ah; Pet er K.
Mi chael , At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WYOMI NG, Cheyenne, Wyomi ng, f or Ami ci St at 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 Car ol i na, Sout h Dakot a, Ut ah, and
Wyomi ng. St ephen M. Cr ampt on, Mar y E. McAl i st er , LI BERTY
COUNSEL, Lynchbur g, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Wal l Bui l der s, LLC.
Mat hew 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 of
Pedi at r i ci ans. Fr ank 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 and
Amer i can Leader shi p Fund. Mi chael F. Smi t h, THE SMI TH APPELLATE
LAW FI RM, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Rober t P. Geor ge, Sher i f
Gi r gi s, and Ryan T. Ander son. Ger ar d V. Br adl ey, NOTRE DAME LAW
SCHOOL, Not r e Dame, I ndi ana; Kevi n T. Sni der , PACI FI C J USTI CE
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 14 of 98
15

I NSTI TUTE, Oakl and, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Paul McHugh. Ant hony
R. 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 Lake
Ci t y, Ut ah, f or Ami ci Uni t ed St at es Conf er ence of Cat hol i c
Bi 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 y
Commi ssi on of t he Sout her n Bapt i st Convent i on, and Lut her an
Chur ch- Mi ssour i Synod. Er i c Rassbach, Asma Uddi n, THE BECKET
FUND FOR RELI GI OUS LI BERTY, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami cus The
Becket 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 Legal
Def 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 or ni a, f or Ami cus Rober t Oscar
Lopez. 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 The
Amer i can Mi l i t ar y Par t ner Associ at i on. Geof f r ey R. St one, THE
UNI VERSI TY OF CHI CAGO LAWSCHOOL, Chi cago, I l l i noi s; Lor i Al vi no
McGi l l , LATHAM & WATKI NS LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci
Const 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 , Lee
Epst 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 am
Mar shal l , Fr ank 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 amVan 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 y
L. Car mi chael , San J ose, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Concer ned Women
f 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 cal
Associ 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 a
Const i t ut i onal Law Pr of essor s. Nat hal i e F. P. Gi l f oyl e, AMERI CAN
PSYCHOLOGI CAL ASSOCI ATI ON, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; Br uce V. Spi va, THE
SPI VA LAW FI RM PLLC, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Amer i can
Psychol 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 al
Wor ker s, and Vi r gi ni a Psychol ogi cal Associ at i on. Mar k
Kl 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 ci
Equal 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 ON
FOUNDATI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k; 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 e
and 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,
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 15 of 98
16

Lee Kni ght Caf f er y 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 ya
Shapi r o, CATO I NSTI TUTE, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Cat o
I nst i t ut e and Const i t ut i onal Account abi l i t y Cent er . Dani el
McNeel 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, Los
Angel es, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami ci Hi st or i ans of Mar r i age Pet er W.
Bar dagl i o, Nor ma 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 nger
Gor don, Mi chael Gr ossber g, Hendr i k Har t og, El l en Her man, Mar t ha
Hodes, 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,
Mar y L. Shanl ey, Amy Dr u St anl ey, and Bar bar a Wel ke. J i yun
Camer on 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 Fr i ends of Lesbi ans
and 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 or ni a, f or Ami ci
Ker r y Abr ams, Al ber t Cl ar k 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 l t on, Pr of essor of Law
Wi l l i am and Mar y, Mer edi t h Har bach, Pr of essor of Law Uni ver si t y
of Ri chmond, J oan Hei f et z Hol l i nger , J ohn and El i zabet h Boal t
Lect ur er i n Resi dence Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a, Ber kel ey School
of Law, Cour t ney G. J osl i n, Pr of essor of Law Uni ver si t y of
Cal i f or ni a, Davi s School of Law, and For t y- Four Ot her Fami l y Law
Pr of essor s. Sher r i l yn I f i l l , Chr i st i na A. Swar ns, Ri a Tabacco
Mar , 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 NAACP
Legal Def ense & Educat i onal Fund, I nc. and Nat i onal Associ at i on
f or t he Advancement of Col or ed Peopl e. Ader son Bel l egar de
Fr 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. Shat z, MANATT,
PHELPS & PHI LLI PS, LLP, Los Angel es, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus
Howar 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 y
Equal 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 or
Ami 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 ssa
Lamb 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
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 16 of 98
17

Di scr i mi nat i on. Rocky C. Tsai , Samuel P. Bi cket t , Rebecca
Har l ow, ROPES & GRAY LLP, San Fr anci sco, Cal i f or ni a; St even M.
Fr eeman, Set h M. Mar ni n, Mel i ssa Gar l i ck, ANTI - DEFAMATI ON
LEAGUE, 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 Separ at i on of Chur ch and St at e, Bend t he
Ar c: A J ewi sh Par t ner shi p f or J ust i ce, Hadassah, The Women' s
Zi oni st Or gani zat i on of Amer i ca, Hi ndu Amer i can Foundat i on, The
I nt er f ai t h Al l i ance Foundat i on, J apanese Amer i can Ci t i zens
League, 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, Mor e Li ght Pr esbyt er i ans, The
Nat i onal Counci l of J ewi sh Women, Nehi r i m, Peopl e For t he
Amer i can Way Foundat i on, Pr esbyt er i an Wel come, Reconci l i ngwor ks:
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 et y f or
Humani 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, Nor t h Car ol i na; Suzanne B. Gol dber g, Sexual i t y and
Gender Law Cl i ni c, COLUMBI A LAW SCHOOL, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or
Ami 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 essi ca N. Wi t t e, KRAMER LEVI N NAFTALI S & FRANKEL LLP, New
Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami ci Bi shops of t he Epi scopal Chur ch i n
Vi r gi ni a, The Cent r al At l ant i c Conf er ence of t he Uni t ed Chur ch
of Chr i st , Cent r al Conf er ence of Amer i can Rabbi s, Mor mons f or
Equal 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 sh
Reconst 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, Covenant
Net wor k of Pr esbyt er i ans, Met hodi st Feder at i on f or Soci al
Act i on, Mor e Li ght Pr esbyt er i ans, Pr esbyt er 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 For
Ful l Par t i ci pat i on, Rel i gi ous I nst i t ut e, I nc. , and Women of
Ref 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 oyer s
and Or gani zat i ons Repr esent i ng Empl oyer s. Mar t 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 , Fr eder i ck D.
Augenst er n, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Bost on,
Massachuset t s; Kamal a D. Har r i s, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALI FORNI A, Sacr ament o, Cal i f or ni a; Geor ge
J epsen, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
CONNECTI CUT, Har t f or d, Connect i cut ; I r vi n B. Nat han, At t or ney
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 17 of 98
18

Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DI STRI CT OF
COLUMBI A, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; Li sa Madi gan, At t or ney Gener al ,
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 Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
I 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 Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Bal t i mor e, Mar yl and; J oseph A. Fost er , At t or ney
Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHI RE,
Concor d, New Hampshi r e; Gar y K. Ki ng, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXI CO, Sant a Fe, New Mexi co;
Er i c T. Schnei der man, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF NEW YORK, New Yor k, New Yor k; 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 OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, Mont pel i er , Ver mont ; Rober t W.
Fer guson, At t or ney Gener al , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHI NGTON, Ol ympi a, Washi ngt on, f or Ami ci Massachuset t s,
Cal i f or ni a, Connect i cut , Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, I l l i noi s, I owa,
Mai ne, Mar yl and, New Hampshi r e, New Mexi co, New Yor k, Or egon,
Ver mont , and Washi ngt on. Br ad W. Sei l i ng, Benj ami n G. Shat z,
MANATT, PHELPS & PHI LLI PS, LLP, Los Angel es, Cal i f or ni a, f or
Ami cus Gar y 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, Los
Angel es, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Nat i onal and West er n St at es
Women' s Ri ght s Or gani zat i ons. Donal d K. But l er , BATZLI STI LES
BUTLER, 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 can
Academy of Mat r i moni al Lawyer s. Mar ci a D. Gr eenber ger , 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 Advocat es, Legal Moment um, Nat i onal Associ at i on of
Women Lawyer s, 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 , and
Pr 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 Fr anci sco, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Bay Ar ea Lawyer s f or
I ndi vi dual Fr eedom. 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 and
Human Ri ght s, Publ i c I nt er est Or gani zat i ons, and Bar
Associ 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, San
Fr anci sco, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus Fami l y Law and Conf l i ct of
Laws Pr of essor s. Mar k C. Fl emi ng, Fel i ci a H. El l swor t h, Bost on,
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 18 of 98
19

Massachuset t s, Paul R. Q. Wol f son, Di na B. Mi shr a, Leah M.
Li t man, Washi ngt on, D. C. , Al an Schoenf el d, WI LMER CUTLER
PI 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 HUMPHREY
LAW 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 ual
Li vi ng, Cl ar endon Pr esbyt er i an Chur ch, Commonweal t h Bapt i st
Chur 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 her n
Vi r gi ni a, Mt . Ver non Uni t ar i an Chur ch, St . J ames UCC, St . J ohn' s
UCC, New Li f e Met r opol i t an Communi t y Chur ch, Uni t ar i an
Uni ver sal i st Fel l owshi p of t he Peni nsul a, Uni t ar i an Uni ver sal i st
Congr egat i on of St er l i ng, Uni t ed Chur ch of Chr i st of
Fr eder 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 Ander son, Rev. Robi n Ander son, Rev.
Ver ne Ar ens, Rabbi Li a Bass, Rev. J oseph G. Beat t i e, Rev. Mar c
Boswel l , Rev. Sue Br owni ng, Rev. J i mBundy, Rev. Mar k Byr d, 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. Amber
Neur ot h, Rev. J ames Papi l e, Rev. Li nda Ol son Peebl es, Rev. Don
Pr ange, Rabbi Mi chael Ragozi n, Rabbi Ben Romer , Rev. J enni f er
Ryu, Rev. Anya Samml er - Mi chael , Rabbi Amy Schwar t zman, Rev.
Danny Spear s, Rev. Mar k 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, and
Rev. Dr . Kar en- Mar i e Yust .







Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 19 of 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 mar r yi ng and
r ef uses t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages per f or med el sewher e.
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 Pr ocess and Equal Pr ot ect 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 t o 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 has
st ayed a chal l enge t o West Vi r gi ni a s st at ut e pendi ng our
r 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) .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 20 of 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 per sons 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 mar r 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 r el 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 r ecogni zed same- sex r el at i onshi ps cul mi nat ed i n t he
Mar shal 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 be
a mar r i age val i d i n or r ecogni zed by t hi s Commonweal t h
and i t s pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons.

Thi s Commonweal t h and i t s pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons shal l
not cr eat e or r ecogni ze a l egal st at us f or
r el at i onshi ps of unmar r i ed i ndi vi dual s t hat i nt ends t o
appr oxi mat e t he desi gn, qual i t i es, si gni f i cance, or
ef f ect s of mar r i age. Nor shal l t hi s Commonweal t h or
i t s pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons cr eat e or r ecogni ze anot her
uni 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 or e becomi ng
l aw: t he Gener al Assembl y must appr ove t he amendment i n t wo
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 21 of 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 r at 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 mar r i ages per f or med
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 Mar shal l / Newman
Amendment , and any ot her Vi r gi ni a l aw t hat bar s 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 t he di gni t y and
r espect accor ded t o mar r 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.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 22 of 98
23

Bost i c and London have been i n a l ong- t er m, 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 mor e t han t went y year s. They desi r e t o mar r 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 anot her 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 ar e 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 t he 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
hour s 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.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 23 of 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 par ent s on her bi r t h cer t i f i cat e.
Unt i l Febr uar y 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 nsur ance.
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 t axes 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 of
t 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 hemt housands of dol l ar s.
On J ul y 18, 2013, Bost i c and London sued f or mer Gover nor
Rober t F. McDonnel l , f or mer At t or ney Gener al Kennet h 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
Sept ember 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 Pr ot ect i on Cl auses of
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 24 of 98
25

t he Four t eent h 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 r equest 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 summar y 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 Gener al Mar k
Her r i ngas Rai ney s counsel submi t t ed a f or mal 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 or ce t hem. McQui gg adopt ed
Rai ney s pr i or mot i on f or summar y 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 summar y 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 cer s, 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
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 25 of 98
26

484. The cour t st 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 pr evi 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 scr ut 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 t he Opponent s of t he Vi r gi ni a
Mar r i age Laws. Schaef er and McQui gg ar e t he Pr oponent s.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 26 of 98
27

I I .
Bef or e we t ur n t o t he mer i t s of t he par t i es ar gument s i n
t hi s case, we consi der Schaef er s cont ent i on t hat [ t ] he t r i al
cour t er r ed as a mat t er of l aw when i t f ound al l Pl ai nt i f f s had
st andi ng and asser t ed cl ai ms agai nst al l Def endant s. We r evi ew
t he di st r i ct cour t s di sposi t i on of cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y
j udgment i ncl udi ng i t s det er mi nat i ons r egar di ng st andi ngde
novo, vi ewi ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he non-
movi ng par t y. Li ber t ar i an Par t y of Va. v. J udd, 718 F. 3d 308,
313 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ; Covenant Medi a of S. C. , LLC v. Ci t y of N.
Char l est on, 493 F. 3d 421, 427- 28 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) . Summar y
j udgment i s appr opr i at e when t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o
any mat er i al f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a
mat t er of l aw. Li ber t ar i an Par t y of Va. , 718 F. 3d at 313- 14
( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ) .
To est abl i sh st andi ng under Ar t i cl e I I I of t he
Const i t ut i on, a pl ai nt i f f must al l ege ( 1) an i nj ur y t hat i s
( 2) f ai r l y t r aceabl e t o t he def endant s al l egedl y unl awf ul
conduct and t hat i s ( 3) l i kel y t o be r edr essed by t he r equest ed
r el i ef . Luj an v. Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 590
( 1992) ( quot i ng Al l en v. Wr i ght , 468 U. S. 737, 751 ( 1984) )
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The st andi ng r equi r ement
appl i es t o each cl ai m t hat a pl ai nt i f f seeks t o pr ess.
Dai ml er Chr ysl er Cor p. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 352 ( 2006) .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 27 of 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 ever y def endant . However , t he Supr eme Cour t has
made i t cl ear t hat t he pr esence of one par t y wi t h st andi ng i s
suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf 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
Commer ce 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. Cor p. , 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 r espect 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
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 28 of 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 t hey 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 t hose

2
Schaef er cont ends t hat Schal l and Townl ey cannot br i ng a
1983 cl ai magai nst hi mf or t he same r eason: he di d not commi t
any act or omi ssi 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 eged
i 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 he
st 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 or
a 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. The
di st r i ct cour t coul d t her ef or e ent er t ai n a 1983 cl ai m agai nst
Schaef er wi t hout ascer t ai ni ng whet her he commi t t ed any act i on
wi 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 par t e Young, 209
U. S. 123 ( 1908) . Pur suant t o Ex par t e Young, t he El event h
Amendment 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 or cement of an unconst i t ut i onal l aw when t he
of 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 s
omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Ex par t e Young, 209 U. S. at 157) . Schaef er
bear s t he r equi si t e connect i on t o t he enf or cement of t he
Vi 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 ng
appl i cat i ons f or mar r i age l i censes.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 29 of 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 Hor ne v. Fl or es, 557 U. S.
433, 446- 47 ( 2009) ( decl i ni ng t o 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 st r 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 t he 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 ng
compl 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 s
r esponsi bl e f or enf or cement of t he speci f i c pr ovi si ons
at i ssue i n t hi s Amended Compl ai nt , namel y t hose l aws
t hat l i mi t mar r i age t o opposi t e- sex coupl es and t hat
r ef use t o honor t he benef i t s of same- sex mar r i ages
l 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 shes
f 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 necessar y t o pr epar e t he adopt ed chi l d s bi r t h
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 30 of 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 gover nment er ect s a bar r i er t hat makes i t mor e
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
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 31 of 98
32

upon mar r 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 t r 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 concr et 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 scr i 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 t ax bur dens f r om whi ch mar r i ed
opposi t e- sex coupl es ar e exempt . Because Schal l and Townl ey
hi ghl i ght speci f i c, concr et e i nst ances of di scr i 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 es
f r om adopt i ng chi l dr en. The Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws i mpose a
f unct i onal ban on adopt i on by same- sex coupl es because t he
Vi r gi ni a Code al l ows onl y mar r i ed coupl es or unmar r i ed
i ndi vi dual s t o adopt chi l dr en. Va. Code Ann. 63. 2- 1232( A) ( 6) .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 32 of 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 r equi 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 st andi ng as t o at
l east one def endant .

I I I .
Havi ng r esol ved t he t hr 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 eent h Amendment ar gument s.
We begi n wi t h t he i ssue of whet her t he Supr eme Cour t s summar y
di smi ssal i n Baker v. Nel son set t l es t hi s case. Baker came t o
t he Supr eme Cour t as an appeal f r om a Mi nnesot a Supr eme 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 Pr ocess or Equal Pr ot 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 r equi 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.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 33 of 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.
Summar y 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. Summar y 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 t he Supr eme Cour t deci ded Uni t ed
St at es 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 ,
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 34 of 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 concer ned whet her sect i on 3 of t he f eder al Def ense
of Mar r 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 ar gument s t o
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 35 of 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 Supr eme 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 egar di 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 Pr ocess 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
Pr ocess Cl auses of t he Fi f t h and Four t eent h Amendment s af f or d
const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on t o per sonal deci si ons r el at i ng t o
mar r i age, pr ocr eat 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 age
f r om encompassi ng same- sex r el at i onshi ps was al so at i ssue i n
Hol l i ngswor t h v. Per r y, 133 S. Ct . 2652 ( 2013) , a case t hat t he
Supr eme Cour t ul t i mat el y deci ded on st andi ng gr ounds. Al t hough
t 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 was
1971. The Supr eme Cour t hadn t even deci ded t hat gender - based
cl assi f i cat i ons get any ki nd of hei ght ened scr ut i ny. . . .
[ S] ame- sex i nt i mat e conduct was consi der ed cr i mi nal i n many
st 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.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 36 of 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 necessar y ef f ect of [ sect i on 3]
ar e t o demean t hose per sons who ar e i n a l awf ul same- sex
mar r i age, whol i ke t he unmar r 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 Pr ocess Cl auses
pr ot ect i on.
The Cour t has al so i ssued sever al maj or equal pr ot 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 scr ut i ny r at 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 scr ut i ny t o descr i be t he Cour t s t est ( i nt er nal quot at i on
mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Two decades l at er , i n Romer v. Evans, t he
Supr eme Cour t st r uck down a Col or ado 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 act i on
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 37 of 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 r easons of f er ed f or i t t hat t he amendment seems
i nexpl i cabl e by anyt hi ng but ani mus t owar d t he cl ass i t
af f ect s, 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 bot h 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 t hat , 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 appar ent abandonment of
Baker and t he 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 ascer t ai n what l evel of
const i t ut i onal scr ut i ny appl i es: ei t her r at i onal basi s r evi ew
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 38 of 98
39

or some f or m of hei ght ened scr ut i ny, such as st r i ct scr ut i ny.
Second, we appl y t he appr opr i at e l evel of scr ut i ny t o det er mi ne
whet her t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws pass const i t ut i onal must er .
Under bot h t he Due Pr ocess and Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl auses,
i nt er f er ence wi t h a f undament al r i ght war r ant s t he appl i cat i on
of st r i ct scr ut i ny.
6
Washi ngt on v. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. 702,
719- 20 ( 1997) ; Zabl ocki v. Redhai l , 434 U. S. 374, 383 ( 1978) .
We t her ef or e begi n by assessi ng whet her t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age
Laws i nf r i nge on a f undament al r i ght . Fundament al r i ght s spr i ng
f r om t he Four t eent h Amendment s pr ot ect i on of i ndi vi dual
l i ber t y, whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t has descr i bed as t he r i ght t o
def i ne one s own concept of exi st ence, of meani ng, of t he
uni ver se, and of t he myst er y of human l i f e. Pl anned Par ent hood
of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 851 ( 1992) . Thi s l i ber t y
i ncl udes t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r y. Zabl ocki , 434 U. S. at
383; Lovi ng v. Vi r gi ni a, 388 U. S. 1, 12 ( 1967) ; see Gr i swol d v.

6
The Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause al so di ct at es t hat some f or m
of hei ght ened scr ut i ny appl i es when a l aw di scr i mi nat es based on
a suspect or quasi - suspect cl assi f i cat i on, such as r ace or
gender . See Ci t y of Cl ebur ne v. Cl ebur ne Li vi ng Ct r . , 473 U. S.
432, 440- 41 ( 1985) ; Mass. Bd. of Ret . v. Mur gi a, 427 U. S. 307,
313- 14 ( 1976) ( per cur i am) . Thi s Cour t pr evi ousl y decl i ned t o
r ecogni ze sexual or i ent at i on as a suspect cl assi f i cat i on i n
Thomasson v. Per r y, 80 F. 3d 915, 928 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) ( en banc) ,
and Veney v. Wyche, 293 F. 3d 726, 731- 32 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002) .
Because we concl ude t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws war r ant
st r i ct scr ut i ny due t o t hei r i nf r i ngement of t he f undament al
r i ght t o mar r y, we need not r each t he quest i on of whet her
Thomasson and Veney r emai n good l aw.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 39 of 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 agr ee 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
whet her t hat r i ght encompasses t he r i ght t o same- sex mar r 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 t o anot her per son of t he
same sex, not t he r i ght t o mar r y. I n Gl ucksber g, 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
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 40 of 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 t hi 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 Pr oponent 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 r ef used t o per mi 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 whet her t o r ecogni 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 ucksber g s
anal ysi s i s i nappl i cabl e her e.
Over t he decades, t he Supr eme 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 nor ms. 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
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 41 of 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 essent i al t o t he or der l y pur sui t of
happi ness by f r ee men and t hat no val i d basi s j ust i f i ed t he
Vi r gi ni a l aw s i nf r i ngement of t hat r i ght . I d. at 12.
Subsequent l y, i n Zabl ocki v. Redhai l , t he Supr eme Cour t
consi der ed t he const i t ut i onal i t y of a Wi sconsi n st at ut e t hat
r equi r ed peopl e obl i gat ed t o pay chi l d suppor t t o obt ai n a cour t
or der gr ant i ng per mi ssi on t o mar r y bef or e t hey coul d r ecei ve a
mar r i age l i cense. 434 U. S. at 375, 383- 84. The st at ut e
speci f i ed t hat a cour t shoul d gr ant per mi ssi on onl y t o
appl i cant s who pr oved t hat t hey had compl i ed wi t h t hei r chi l d
suppor t obl i gat i ons and demonst r at ed t hat t hei r chi l dr en wer e
not l i kel y t o become publ i c char ges. I d. at 375 ( i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The Cour t hel d t hat t he st at ut e
i mper mi ssi bl y i nf r i nged on t he r i ght t o mar r y. See i d. at 390-
91. Fi nal l y, i n Tur ner v. Saf l ey, t he Cour t det er mi ned t hat a
Mi ssour i r egul at i on t hat gener al l y pr ohi bi t ed pr i son i nmat es
f r om mar r yi ng was an unconst i t ut i onal br each of t he r i ght t o
mar r y. 482 U. S. 78, 82, 94- 99 ( 1987) .
These cases do not def i ne t he r i ght s i n quest i on as t he
r i ght t o i nt er r aci al mar r i age, t he r i ght of peopl e owi ng chi l d
suppor t t o mar r y, and t he r i ght of pr i son i nmat es t o mar r y.
I nst ead, t hey speak of a br oad r i ght t o mar r y t hat i s not
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 42 of 98
43

ci r cumscr i bed based on t he char act er i st i cs of t he i ndi vi dual s
seeki ng t o exer ci se t hat r i ght . The Supr eme Cour t s
unwi l l i ngness t o const r ai n t he r i ght t o mar r y t o cer t ai n
subspeci es of mar r i age meshes wi t h i t s concl usi on t hat t he r i ght
t o mar r y i s a mat t er of f r eedom of choi ce, Zabl ocki , 434 U. S.
at 387, t hat r esi des wi t h t he i ndi vi dual , Lovi ng, 388 U. S. at
12. I f cour t s l i mi t ed t he r i ght t o mar r y t o cer t ai n coupl i ngs,
t hey woul d ef f ect i vel y cr eat e a l i st of l egal l y pr ef er r ed
spouses, r ender i ng t he choi ce of whom t o mar r y a hol l ow choi ce
i ndeed.
The Pr oponent s poi nt out t hat Lovi ng, Zabl ocki , and Tur ner
each i nvol ved opposi t e- sex coupl es. They cont end t hat , because
t he coupl es i n t hose cases chose t o ent er opposi t e- sex
mar r i ages, we cannot use t hemt o concl ude t hat t he Supr eme Cour t
woul d gr ant t he same l evel of const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on t o t he
choi ce t o mar r y a per son of t he same sex. However , t he Supr eme
Cour t s deci si ons i n Lawr ence and Wi ndsor suggest ot her wi se. I n
Lawr ence, t he Cour t expr essl y r ef used t o nar r owl y def i ne t he
r i ght at i ssue as t he r i ght of homosexual s t o engage i n
sodomy, concl udi ng t hat doi ng so woul d const i t ut e a f ai l ur e t o
appr eci at e t he ext ent of t he l i ber t y at st ake. 539 U. S. at
566- 67. J ust as i t has done i n t he r i ght - t o- mar r y ar ena, t he
Cour t i dent i f i ed t he r i ght at i ssue i n Lawr ence as a mat t er of
choi ce, expl ai ni ng t hat gay and l esbi an i ndi vi dual sl i ke al l
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 43 of 98
44

peopl eenj oy t he r i ght t o make deci si ons r egar di ng t hei r
per sonal r el at i onshi ps. I d. at 567. As we not e above, t he
Cour t r ei t er at ed t hi s t heme i n Wi ndsor , i n whi ch i t based i t s
concl usi on t hat sect i on 3 of DOMA was unconst i t ut i onal , i n par t ,
on t hat pr ovi si on s di sr espect f or t he mor al and sexual
choi ces t hat accompany a same- sex coupl e s deci si on t o mar r y.
133 S. Ct . at 2694. Lawr ence and Wi ndsor i ndi cat e t hat t he
choi ces t hat i ndi vi dual s make i n t he cont ext of same- sex
r el at i onshi ps enj oy t he same const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on as t he
choi ces accompanyi ng opposi t e- sex r el at i onshi ps. We t her ef or e
have no r eason t o suspect t hat t he Supr eme Cour t woul d accor d
t he choi ce t o mar r y someone of t he same sex any l ess r espect
t han t he choi ce t o mar r y an opposi t e- sex i ndi vi dual who i s of a
di f f er ent r ace, owes chi l d suppor t , or i s i mpr i soned.
Accor di ngl y, we decl i ne t he Pr oponent s i nvi t at i on t o
char act er i ze t he r i ght at i ssue i n t hi s case as t he r i ght t o
same- sex mar r i age r at her t han si mpl y t he r i ght t o mar r y.
Of cour se, [ b] y r eaf f i r mi ng t he f undament al char act er of
t he r i ght t o mar r y, we do not mean t o suggest t hat ever y st at e
r egul at i on whi ch r el at es i n any way t o t he i nci dent s of or
pr er equi si t es f or mar r i age must be subj ect ed t o r i gor ous
scr ut i ny. Zabl ocki , 434 U. S. at 386. St r i ct scr ut i ny appl i es
onl y when l aws si gni f i cant l y i nt er f er e wi t h a f undament al
r i ght . See i d. at 386- 87. The Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 44 of 98
45

unquest i onabl y sat i sf y t hi s r equi r ement : t hey i mpede t he r i ght
t o mar r y by pr event i ng same- sex coupl es f r om mar r yi ng and
nul l i f yi ng t he l egal i mpor t of t hei r out - of - st at e mar r i ages.
St r i ct scr ut i ny t her ef or e appl i es i n t hi s case.

B.
Under st r i ct scr ut i ny, a l aw may be j ust i f i ed onl y by
compel l i ng st at e i nt er est s, and must be nar r owl y dr awn t o
expr ess onl y t hose i nt er est s. Car ey v. Popul at i on Ser vs.
I nt l , 431 U. S. 678, 686 ( 1977) . The Pr oponent s bear t he bur den
of demonst r at i ng t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws sat i sf y t hi s
st andar d, see Fi sher v. Uni v. of Tex. at Aust i n, 133 S. Ct .
2411, 2420 ( 2013) , and t hey must r el y on t he l aws act ual
pur pose[ s] r at her t han hypot het i cal j ust i f i cat i ons, see Shaw v.
Hunt , 517 U. S. 899, 908 n. 4 ( 1996) . The Pr oponent s
7
cont end t hat
f i ve compel l i ng i nt er est s under gi r d t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws:
( 1) Vi r gi ni a s f eder al i sm- based i nt er est i n mai nt ai ni ng cont r ol
over t he def i ni t i on of mar r i age wi t hi n i t s bor der s, ( 2) t he
hi st or y and t r adi t i on of opposi t e- sex mar r i age, ( 3) pr ot ect i ng
t he i nst i t ut i on of mar r i age, ( 4) encour agi ng r esponsi bl e

7
Al t hough some of t hese ar gument s appear onl y i n McQui gg s
br i ef s, we at t r i but e t hem t o t he Pr oponent s because Schaef er
r eser ved t he r i ght t o adopt and i ncor por at e i n whol e or i n
par t McQui gg s di scussi on of t he r at i onal es under l yi ng t he
Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 45 of 98
46

pr ocr eat i on, and ( 5) pr omot i ng t he opt i mal chi l dr ear i ng
envi r onment . We di scuss each of t hese i nt er est s i n t ur n.

1. Feder al i sm
The Const i t ut i on does not gr ant t he f eder al gover nment any
aut hor i t y over domest i c r el at i ons mat t er s, such as mar r i age.
Accor di ngl y, t hr oughout our count r y s hi st or y, st at es have
enj oyed t he f r eedom t o def i ne and r egul at e mar r i age as t hey see
f i t . See Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2691- 92. St at es cont r ol over
mar r i age l aws wi t hi n t hei r bor der s has r esul t ed i n some
var i at i on among st at es r equi r ement s. For exampl e, West
Vi r gi ni a pr ohi bi t s f i r st cousi ns f r om mar r yi ng, W. Va. Code
48- 2- 302, but t he r emai ni ng st at es i n t hi s Ci r cui t al l ow f i r st
cousi n mar r i age, see Md. Code Ann. , Fam. Law 2- 202; N. C. Gen.
St at . 51- 3; S. C. Code Ann. 20- 1- 10; Va. Code Ann. 20- 38. 1.
St at es power t o def i ne and r egul at e mar r i age al so account s f or
t hei r di f f er i ng t r eat ment of same- sex coupl es.
The Wi ndsor deci si on r est ed i n par t on t he Supr eme Cour t s
r espect f or st at es supr emacy i n t he domest i c r el at i ons spher e.
8


8
I n Wi ndsor , t he Cour t di d not l abel t he t ype of
const i t ut i onal scr ut i ny i t appl i ed, l eavi ng us unsur e how t he
Cour t woul d f i t i t s f eder al i sm di scussi on wi t hi n a t r adi t i onal
hei ght ened scr ut i ny or r at i onal basi s anal ysi s. The l ower
cour t s have t aken di f f er i ng appr oaches, wi t h some di scussi ng
Wi ndsor and f eder al i sm as a t hr eshol d mat t er , see, e. g. , Wol f ,
2014 WL 2558444, at *8- 12; Bi shop v. Uni t ed St at es ex r el .

Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 46 of 98
47

The Cour t r ecogni zed t hat sect i on 3 of DOMA upset t he st at us quo
by r obbi ng st at es of t hei r abi l i t y t o def i ne mar r i age. Al t hough
st at es coul d l egal i ze same- sex mar r i age, t hey coul d not ensur e
t hat t he i nci dent s, benef i t s, and obl i gat i ons of mar r i age woul d
be uni f or m wi t hi n t hei r bor der s. See Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at
2692. However , t he Cour t di d not l ament t hat sect i on 3 had
usur ped st at es aut hor i t y over mar r i age due t o i t s desi r e t o
saf eguar d f eder al i sm. I d. ( [ T] he St at e s power i n def i ni ng t he
mar i t al r el at i on i s of cent r al r el evance i n t hi s case qui t e
apar t f r om t he pr i nci pl es of f eder al i sm. ) . I t s concer n spr ung
f r om sect i on 3 s cr eat i on of t wo cl asses of mar r i ed coupl es
wi t hi n st at es t hat had l egal i zed same- sex mar r i age: opposi t e-
sex coupl es, whose mar r i ages t he f eder al gover nment r ecogni zed,
and same- sex coupl es, whose mar r i ages t he f eder al gover nment
i gnor ed. I d. The r esul t i ng i nj ur y t o same- sex coupl es ser ved
as t he f oundat i on f or t he Cour t s concl usi on t hat sect i on 3
vi ol at ed t he Fi f t h Amendment s Due Pr ocess Cl ause. I d. at 2693.


Hol der , 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1277- 79 ( N. D. Okl a. 2014) ; Ki t chen
v. Her ber t , 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1193- 94 ( D. Ut ah 2013) , and
ot her ssuch as t he di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s caseconsi der i ng
f eder al i sm as a st at e i nt er est under l yi ng t he same- sex mar r i age
bans at i ssue, see, e. g. , Lat t a, 2014 WL 1909999, at *25- 26;
DeBoer , 973 F. Supp. 2d at 773- 75; Bost i c, 970 F. Supp. 2d at
475- 77. Al t hough we f ol l ow t he di st r i ct cour t s l ead and
si t uat e our f eder al i sm di scussi on wi t hi n our appl i cat i on of
st r i ct scr ut i ny, our concl usi on woul d r emai n t he same even i f we
sel ect ed an al t er nat e or gani zat i onal appr oach.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 47 of 98
48

Ci t i ng Wi ndsor , t he Pr oponent s ur ge us t o vi ew Vi r gi ni a s
f eder al i sm- based i nt er est i n def i ni ng mar r i age as a sui t abl e
j ust i f i cat i on f or t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws. However , Wi ndsor
i s act ual l y det r i ment al t o t hei r posi t i on. Al t hough t he Cour t
emphasi zed st at es t r adi t i onal aut hor i t y over mar r i age, i t
acknowl edged t hat [ s] t at e l aws def i ni ng and r egul at i ng
mar r i age, of cour se, must r espect t he const i t ut i onal r i ght s of
per sons. I d. at 2691 ( ci t i ng Lovi ng, 388 U. S. 1) ; see al so i d.
at 2692 ( The St at es i nt er est i n def i ni ng and r egul at i ng t he
mar i t al r el at i on[ ] [ i s] subj ect t o const i t ut i onal guar ant ees. ) .
Wi ndsor does not t each us t hat f eder al i sm pr i nci pl es can j ust i f y
depr i vi ng i ndi vi dual s of t hei r const i t ut i onal r i ght s; i t
r ei t er at es Lovi ng s admoni t i on t hat t he st at es must exer ci se
t hei r aut hor i t y wi t hout t r ampl i ng const i t ut i onal guar ant ees.
Vi r gi ni a s f eder al i sm- based i nt er est i n def i ni ng mar r i age
t her ef or e cannot j ust i f y i t s encr oachment on t he f undament al
r i ght t o mar r y.
The Supr eme Cour t s r ecent deci si on i n Schuet t e v.
Coal i t i on t o Def end Af f i r mat i ve Act i on, 134 S. Ct . 1623 ( 2014) ,
does not change t he concl usi on t hat Wi ndsor di ct at es. I n
Schuet t e, t he Cour t r ef used t o st r i ke down a vot er - appr oved
st at e const i t ut i onal amendment t hat bar r ed publ i c uni ver si t i es
i n Mi chi gan f r om usi ng r ace- based pr ef er ences as par t of t hei r
admi ssi ons pr ocesses. I d. at 1629, 1638. The Cour t decl i ned t o
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 48 of 98
49

cl osel y scr ut i ni ze t he amendment because i t was not used, or
. . . l i kel y t o be used, t o encour age i nf l i ct i on of i nj ur y by
r eason of r ace. See i d. at 1638. I nst ead, t he Cour t dwel l ed
on t he need t o r espect t he vot er s pol i cy choi ce, concl udi ng
t hat [ i ] t i s demeani ng t o t he democr at i c pr ocess t o pr esume
t hat t he vot er s ar e not capabl e of deci di ng an i ssue of t hi s
sensi t i vi t y on decent and r at i onal gr ounds and t he j udi ci ar y s
r ol e was not t o di sempower t he vot er s f r om choosi ng whi ch pat h
t o f ol l ow. I d. at 1635- 38.
The Pr oponent s emphasi ze t hat Vi r gi ni a s vot er s appr oved
t he Mar shal l / Newman Amendment . Li ke t he Mi chi gan amendment at
i ssue i n Schuet t e, t he Mar shal l / Newman Amendment i s t he
codi f i cat i on of Vi r gi ni ans pol i cy choi ce i n a l egal ar ena t hat
i s f r aught wi t h i nt ense soci al and pol i t i cal debat e. Amer i cans
abi l i t y t o speak wi t h t hei r vot es i s essent i al t o our democr acy.
But t he peopl e s wi l l i s not an i ndependent compel l i ng i nt er est
t hat war r ant s depr i vi ng same- sex coupl es of t hei r f undament al
r i ght t o mar r y.
The ver y pur pose of a Bi l l of Ri ght s
9
was t o wi t hdr aw
cer t ai n subj ect s f r om t he vi ci ssi t udes of pol i t i cal

9
Of cour se, t he Four t eent h Amendment i s not par t of t he
Bi l l of Ri ght s. Thi s excer pt f r om Bar net t e i s never t hel ess
r el evant her e due t o t he Four t eent h Amendment s si mi l ar goal of
pr ot ect i ng unpopul ar mi nor i t i es f r om gover nment over r eachi ng,
see Regent s of Uni v. of Cal . v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 293 ( 1978) ,
and i t s r ol e i n r ender i ng t he Bi l l of Ri ght s appl i cabl e t o t he
st at es, see Duncan v. Loui si ana, 391 U. S. 145, 147- 48 ( 1968) .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 49 of 98
50

cont r over sy, t o pl ace t hem beyond t he r each of
maj or i t i es and of f i ci al s and t o est abl i sh t hem as
l egal pr i nci pl es t o be appl i ed by t he cour t s. One s
r i ght t o l i f e, l i ber t y, and pr oper t y, t o f r ee speech,
a f r ee pr ess, f r eedom of wor shi p and assembl y, and
ot her f undament al r i ght s may not be submi t t ed t o vot e;
t hey depend on t he out come of no el ect i ons.

W. Va. St at e Bd. of Educ. v. Bar net t e, 319 U. S. 624, 638 ( 1943)
( f oot not e added) ; see al so Romer , 517 U. S. at 623 ( i nval i dat i ng
a vot er - appr oved amendment t o Col or ado s const i t ut i on) ; Lucas v.
For t y- Four t h Gen. Assembl y of Col o. , 377 U. S. 713, 736- 37 ( 1964)
( A ci t i zen s const i t ut i onal r i ght s can har dl y be i nf r i nged
si mpl y because a maj or i t y of t he peopl e choose t hat i t be. ) .
Accor di ngl y, nei t her Vi r gi ni a s f eder al i sm- based i nt er est i n
def i ni ng mar r i age nor our r espect f or t he democr at i c pr ocess
t hat codi f i ed t hat def i ni t i on can excuse t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age
Laws i nf r i ngement of t he r i ght t o mar r y.

2. Hi st or y and Tr adi t i on
The Pr oponent s al so poi nt t o t he hi st or y and t r adi t i on of
opposi t e- sex mar r i age as a compel l i ng i nt er est t hat suppor t s t he
Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws. The Supr eme Cour t has made i t cl ear
t hat , even under r at i onal basi s r evi ew, t he [ a] nci ent l i neage
of a l egal concept does not gi ve i t i mmuni t y f r om at t ack.
Hel l er v. Doe ex r el . Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 326 ( 1993) . The
cl osel y l i nked i nt er est of pr omot i ng mor al pr i nci pl es i s
si mi l ar l y i nf i r m i n l i ght of Lawr ence: t he f act t hat t he
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 50 of 98
51

gover ni ng maj or i t y i n a St at e has t r adi t i onal l y vi ewed a
par t i cul ar pr act i ce as i mmor al i s not a suf f i ci ent r eason f or
uphol di ng a l aw pr ohi bi t i ng t he pr act i ce; nei t her hi st or y nor
t r adi t i on coul d save a l aw pr ohi bi t i ng mi scegenat i on f r om
const i t ut i onal at t ack. 539 U. S. at 577- 78 ( quot i ng Bower s v.
Har dwi ck, 478 U. S. 186, 216 ( 1986) ( St evens, J . , di ssent i ng) )
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so i d. at 601 ( Scal i a,
J . , di ssent i ng) ( But pr eser vi ng t he t r adi t i onal i nst i t ut i on of
mar r i age i s j ust a ki nder way of descr i bi ng t he St at e s mor al
di sappr oval of same- sex coupl es. ) . Pr eser vi ng t he hi st or i cal
and t r adi t i onal st at us quo i s t her ef or e not a compel l i ng
i nt er est t hat j ust i f i es t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws.

3. Saf eguar di ng t he I nst i t ut i on of Mar r i age
I n addi t i on t o ar gui ng t hat hi st or y and t r adi t i on ar e
compel l i ng i nt er est s i n t hei r own r i ght s, t he Pr oponent s war n
t hat devi at i ng f r om t he t r adi t i on of opposi t e- sex mar r i age wi l l
dest abi l i ze t he i nst i t ut i on of mar r i age. The Pr oponent s suggest
t hat l egal i zi ng same- sex mar r i age wi l l sever t he l i nk bet ween
mar r i age and pr ocr eat i on: t hey ar gue t hat , i f same- sex coupl es
who cannot pr ocr eat e nat ur al l yar e al l owed t o mar r y, t he st at e
wi l l sanct i on t he i dea t hat mar r i age i s a vehi cl e f or adul t s
emot i onal f ul f i l l ment , not si mpl y a f r amewor k f or par ent hood.
Accor di ng t o t he Pr oponent s, i f adul t s ar e t he f ocal poi nt of
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 51 of 98
52

mar r i age, t hen no l ogi cal gr ounds r ei nf or ce st abi l i zi ng nor ms
l i ke sexual excl usi vi t y, per manence, and monogamy, whi ch exi st
t o benef i t chi l dr en.
We r ecogni ze t hat , i n some cases, we owe subst ant i al
def er ence t o t he pr edi ct i ve j udgment s of t he Vi r gi ni a Gener al
Assembl y, f or whom t he Pr oponent s pur por t t o speak. Tur ner
Br oad. Sys. , I nc. v. FCC, 520 U. S. 180, 195 ( 1997) . However ,
even i f we vi ew t he Pr oponent s t heor i es t hr ough r ose- col or ed
gl asses, we concl ude t hat t hey ar e unf ounded f or t wo key
r easons. Fi r st , t he Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed t he vi ew t hat
mar r i age i s about onl y pr ocr eat i on i n Gr i swol d v. Connect i cut ,
i n whi ch i t uphel d mar r i ed coupl es r i ght not t o pr ocr eat e and
ar t i cul at ed a vi ew of mar r i age t hat has not hi ng t o do wi t h
chi l dr en:
Mar r i age i s a comi ng t oget her f or bet t er or f or wor se,
hopef ul l y endur i ng, and i nt i mat e t o t he degr ee of
bei ng sacr ed. I t i s an associ at i on t hat pr omot es a way
of l i f e, not causes; a har mony i n l i vi ng, not
pol i t i cal f ai t hs; a bi l at er al l oyal t y, not commer ci al
or soci al pr oj ect s. Yet i t i s an associ at i on f or as
nobl e a pur pose as any i nvol ved i n our pr i or
deci si ons.

381 U. S. at 485- 86; see al so Tur ner , 482 U. S. at 95- 96
( descr i bi ng many non- pr ocr eat i ve pur poses of mar r i age) . The
f act t hat mar r i age s st abi l i zi ng nor ms have endur ed i n t he f i ve
decades si nce t he Supr eme Cour t made t hi s pr onouncement weakens
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 52 of 98
53

t he ar gument t hat coupl es r emai n i n monogamous mar r i ages onl y
f or t he sake of t hei r of f spr i ng.
Second, t he pr i mar y suppor t t hat t he Pr oponent s of f er f or
t hei r t heor y i s t he l egacy of a whol l y unr el at ed l egal change t o
mar r i age: no- f aul t di vor ce. Al t hough no- f aul t di vor ce
cer t ai nl y al t er ed t he r eal i t i es of mar r i ed l i f e by maki ng i t
easi er f or coupl es t o end t hei r r el at i onshi ps, we have no r eason
t o t hi nk t hat l egal i zi ng same- sex mar r i age wi l l have a si mi l ar
dest abi l i zi ng ef f ect . I n f act , i t i s mor e l ogi cal t o t hi nk t hat
same- sex coupl es want access t o mar r i age so t hat t hey can t ake
advant age of i t s hal l mar ks, i ncl udi ng f ai t hf ul ness and
per manence, and t hat al l owi ng l ovi ng, commi t t ed same- sex coupl es
t o mar r y and r ecogni zi ng t hei r out - of - st at e mar r i ages wi l l
st r engt hen t he i nst i t ut i on of mar r i age. We t her ef or e r ej ect t he
Pr oponent s concer ns.

4. Responsi bl e Pr ocr eat i on
Next , t he Pr oponent s cont end t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age
Laws di f f er ent i at i on bet ween opposi t e- sex and same- sex coupl es
st ems f r om t he f act t hat uni nt ended pr egnanci es cannot r esul t
f r om same- sex uni ons. By sanct i oni ng onl y opposi t e- sex
mar r i ages, t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws pr ovi d[ e] st abi l i t y t o
t he t ypes of r el at i onshi ps t hat r esul t i n unpl anned pr egnanci es,
t her eby avoi di ng or di mi ni shi ng t he negat i ve out comes of t en
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 53 of 98
54

associ at ed wi t h uni nt ended chi l dr en. The Pr oponent s al l ege
t hat chi l dr en bor n t o unwed par ent s f ace a si gni f i cant r i sk of
bei ng r ai sed i n unst abl e f ami l i es, whi ch i s har mf ul t o t hei r
devel opment . Vi r gi ni a, of cour se, has a dut y of t he hi ghest
or der t o pr ot ect t he i nt er est s of mi nor chi l dr en, par t i cul ar l y
t hose of t ender year s. Pal mor e v. Si dot i , 466 U. S. 429, 433
( 1984) . However , t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws ar e not
appr opr i at el y t ai l or ed t o f ur t her t hi s i nt er est .
I f Vi r gi ni a sought t o ensur e r esponsi bl e pr ocr eat i on vi a
t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws, t he l aws ar e woef ul l y
under i ncl usi ve. Same- sex coupl es ar e not t he onl y cat egor y of
coupl es who cannot r epr oduce acci dent al l y. For exampl e,
opposi t e- sex coupl es cannot pr ocr eat e uni nt ent i onal l y i f t hey
i ncl ude a post - menopausal woman or an i ndi vi dual wi t h a medi cal
condi t i on t hat pr event s unassi st ed concept i on.
The Pr oponent s at t empt t o downpl ay t he si mi l ar i t y bet ween
same- sex coupl es and i nf er t i l e opposi t e- sex coupl es i n t hr ee
ways. Fi r st , t hey poi nt out t hat st er i l e i ndi vi dual s coul d
r emedy t hei r f er t i l i t y t hr ough f ut ur e medi cal advances. Thi s
pot ent i al i t y, however , does not expl ai n why Vi r gi ni a shoul d
t r eat same- sex and i nf er t i l e opposi t e- sex coupl es di f f er ent l y
dur i ng t he cour se of t he l at t er gr oup s i nf er t i l i t y. Second,
t he Pr oponent s posi t t hat , even i f one member of a man- woman
coupl e i s st er i l e, t he ot her member may not be. They suggest
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 54 of 98
55

t hat , wi t hout mar r i age s monogamy mandat e, t hi s f er t i l e
i ndi vi dual i s mor e l i kel y t o have an uni nt ended chi l d wi t h a
t hi r d par t y. They cont end t hat , due t o t hi s possi bi l i t y, even
opposi t e- sex coupl es who cannot pr ocr eat e need mar r i age t o
channel t hei r pr ocr eat i ve act i vi t y i n a way t hat same- sex
coupl es do not . The Pr oponent s ar gument assumes t hat
i ndi vi dual s i n same- sex r el at i onshi ps never have opposi t e- sex
sexual par t ner s, whi ch i s si mpl y not t he case. Thi r d, t he
Pr oponent s i mpl y t hat , by mar r yi ng, i nf er t i l e opposi t e- sex
coupl es set a posi t i ve exampl e f or coupl es who can have
uni nt ended chi l dr en, t her eby encour agi ng t hem t o mar r y. We see
no r eason why commi t t ed same- sex coupl es cannot ser ve as si mi l ar
r ol e model s. We t her ef or e r ej ect t he Pr oponent s at t empt s t o
di f f er ent i at e same- sex coupl es f r om ot her coupl es who cannot
pr ocr eat e acci dent al l y. Because same- sex coupl es and i nf er t i l e
opposi t e- sex coupl es ar e si mi l ar l y si t uat ed, t he Equal
Pr ot ect i on Cl ause counsel s agai nst t r eat i ng t hese gr oups
di f f er ent l y. See Ci t y of Cl ebur ne, 473 U. S. at 439 ( expl ai ni ng
t hat t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause i s essent i al l y a di r ect i on
t hat al l per sons si mi l ar l y si t uat ed shoul d be t r eat ed al i ke) .
Due t o t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws under i ncl usi vi t y, t hi s
case r esembl es Ci t y of Cl ebur ne v. Cl ebur ne Li vi ng Cent er , I nc.
I n Ci t y of Cl ebur ne, t he Supr eme Cour t st r uck down a ci t y l aw
t hat r equi r ed gr oup homes f or t he i nt el l ect ual l y di sabl ed t o
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 55 of 98
56

obt ai n a speci al use per mi t . I d. at 447- 50. The ci t y di d not
i mpose t he same r equi r ement on si mi l ar st r uct ur es, such as
apar t ment compl exes and nur si ng homes. I d. at 447. The Cour t
det er mi ned t hat t he per mi t r equi r ement was so under i ncl usi ve
t hat t he ci t y s mot i vat i on must have r est [ ed] on an i r r at i onal
pr ej udi ce, r ender i ng t he l aw unconst i t ut i onal . I d. at 450. I n
l i ght of t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws ext r eme under i ncl usi vi t y,
we ar e f or ced t o dr aw t he same concl usi on i n t hi s case.
The Pr oponent s r esponsi bl e pr ocr eat i on ar gument f al t er s
f or anot her r eason as wel l . St r i ct scr ut i ny r equi r es t hat a
st at e s means f ur t her i t s compel l i ng i nt er est . See Shaw, 517
U. S. at 915 ( Al t hough we have not al ways pr ovi ded pr eci se
gui dance on how cl osel y t he means . . . must ser ve t he end ( t he
j ust i f i cat i on or compel l i ng i nt er est ) , we have al ways expect ed
t hat t he l egi sl at i ve act i on woul d subst ant i al l y addr ess, i f not
achi eve, t he avowed pur pose. ) . Pr ohi bi t i ng same- sex coupl es
f r om mar r yi ng and i gnor i ng t hei r out - of - st at e mar r i ages does not
ser ve Vi r gi ni a s goal of pr event i ng out - of - wedl ock bi r t hs.
Al t hough same- sex coupl es cannot pr ocr eat e acci dent al l y, t hey
can and do have chi l dr en vi a ot her met hods. Accor di ng t o an
ami cus br i ef f i l ed by Dr . Gar y J . Gat es, as of t he 2010 U. S.
Census, mor e t han 2500 same- sex coupl es wer e r ai si ng mor e t han
4000 chi l dr en under t he age of ei ght een i n Vi r gi ni a. The
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 56 of 98
57

Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws t her ef or e i ncr ease t he number of chi l dr en
r ai sed by unmar r i ed par ent s.
The Pr oponent s acknowl edge t hat same- sex coupl es become
par ent s. They cont end, however , t hat t he st at e has no i nt er est
i n channel i ng same- sex coupl es pr ocr eat i ve act i vi t i es i nt o
mar r i age because same- sex coupl es br i ng chi l dr en i nt o t hei r
r el at i onshi p[ s] onl y t hr ough i nt ent i onal choi ce and pr e- pl anned
act i on. Accor di ngl y, [ t ] hose coupl es nei t her advance nor
t hr eat en soci et y s publ i c pur pose f or mar r i agest abi l i zi ng
par ent al r el at i onshi ps f or t he benef i t of chi l dr eni n t he same
manner , or t o t he same degr ee, t hat sexual r el at i onshi ps bet ween
men and women do.
I n suppor t of t hi s ar gument , t he Pr oponent s i nvoke t he
Supr eme Cour t s deci si on i n J ohnson v. Robi son, 415 U. S. 361
( 1974) . J ohnson concer ned educat i onal benef i t s t hat t he f eder al
gover nment gr ant ed t o mi l i t ar y vet er ans who ser ved on act i ve
dut y. I d. at 363. The gover nment pr ovi ded t hese benef i t s t o
encour age enl i st ment and make mi l i t ar y ser vi ce mor e pal at abl e t o
exi st i ng ser vi cemember s. I d. at 382- 83. A consci ent i ous
obj ect or who r ef used t o ser ve i n t he mi l i t ar y f or r el i gi ous
r easonsbr ought sui t , cont endi ng t hat t he gover nment act ed
unconst i t ut i onal l y by gr ant i ng benef i t s t o vet er ans but not
consci ent i ous obj ect or s. I d. at 363- 64. The Cour t expl ai ned
t hat , [ w] hen, as i n t hi s case, t he i ncl usi on of one gr oup
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 57 of 98
58

pr omot es a l egi t i mat e gover nment al pur pose, and t he addi t i on of
ot her gr oups woul d not , we cannot say t hat t he st at ut e s
cl assi f i cat i on of benef i ci ar i es and nonbenef i ci ar i es i s
i nvi di ousl y di scr i mi nat or y. I d. at 383. Because of f er i ng
educat i onal benef i t s t o consci ent i ous obj ect or s woul d not
i ncent i vi ze mi l i t ar y ser vi ce, t he f eder al gover nment s l i ne-
dr awi ng was const i t ut i onal . J ohnson, 415 U. S. at 382- 83. The
Pr oponent s cl ai m t hat t r eat i ng opposi t e- sex coupl es di f f er ent l y
f r om same- sex coupl es i s equal l y j ust i f i ed because t he t wo
gr oups ar e not si mi l ar l y si t uat ed wi t h r espect t o t hei r
pr ocr eat i ve pot ent i al .
J ohnson appl i ed r at i onal basi s r evi ew, i d. at 374- 75, so we
st r ongl y doubt i t s appl i cabi l i t y t o our st r i ct scr ut i ny
anal ysi s. I n any event , we can easi l y di st i ngui sh J ohnson f r om
t he i nst ant case. I n J ohnson, of f er i ng educat i onal benef i t s t o
vet er ans who ser ved on act i ve dut y pr omot ed t he gover nment s
goal of maki ng mi l i t ar y ser vi ce mor e at t r act i ve. Ext endi ng
t hose benef i t s t o consci ent i ous obj ect or s, whose r el i gi ous
bel i ef s pr ecl uded mi l i t ar y ser vi ce, di d not f ur t her t hat
obj ect i ve. By cont r ast , a st abl e mar i t al r el at i onshi p i s
at t r act i ve r egar dl ess of a coupl e s pr ocr eat i ve abi l i t y.
Al l owi ng i nf er t i l e opposi t e- sex coupl es t o mar r y does not hi ng t o
f ur t her t he gover nment s goal of channel i ng pr ocr eat i ve conduct
i nt o mar r i age. Thus, excl udi ng same- sex coupl es f r om mar r i age
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 58 of 98
59

due t o t hei r i nabi l i t y t o have uni nt ended chi l dr en makes l i t t l e
sense. J ohnson t her ef or e does not al t er our concl usi on t hat
bar r i ng same- sex coupl es access t o mar r i age does not hi ng t o
f ur t her Vi r gi ni a s i nt er est i n r esponsi bl e pr ocr eat i on.

5. Opt i mal Chi l dr ear i ng
We now shi f t t o di scussi ng t he mer i t of t he f i nal
compel l i ng i nt er est t hat t he Pr oponent s i nvoke: opt i mal
chi l dr ear i ng. The Pr oponent s aver t hat chi l dr en devel op best
when r ear ed by t hei r mar r i ed bi ol ogi cal par ent s i n a st abl e
f ami l y uni t . They dwel l on t he i mpor t ance of gender -
di f f er ent i at ed par ent i ng and ar gue t hat sanct i oni ng same- sex
mar r i age wi l l depr i ve chi l dr en of t he benef i t of bei ng r ai sed by
a mot her and a f at her , who have di st i nct par ent i ng st yl es. I n
essence, t he Pr oponent s ar gue t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws
saf eguar d chi l dr en by pr event i ng same- sex coupl es f r om mar r yi ng
and st ar t i ng i nf er i or f ami l i es.
The Opponent s and t hei r ami ci cast ser i ous doubt on t he
accur acy of t he Pr oponent s cont ent i ons. For exampl e, as t he
Amer i can Psychol 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 al Wor ker s, and Vi r gi ni a Psychol ogi cal
Associ at i on ( col l ect i vel y, t he APA) expl ai n i n t hei r ami cus
br i ef , t her e i s no sci ent i f i c evi dence t hat par ent i ng
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 59 of 98
60

ef f ect i veness i s r el at ed t o par ent al sexual or i ent at i on, and
t he same f act or si ncl udi ng f ami l y st abi l i t y, economi c
r esour ces, and t he qual i t y of par ent - chi l d r el at i onshi psar e
l i nked t o chi l dr en s posi t i ve devel opment , whet her t hey ar e
r ai sed by het er osexual , l esbi an, or gay par ent s. Accor di ng t o
t he APA, t he par ent i ng abi l i t i es of gay men and l esbi ansand
t he posi t i ve out comes f or t hei r chi l dr enar e not ar eas wher e
most cr edi bl e sci ent i f i c r esear cher s di sagr ee, and t he cont r ar y
st udi es t hat t he Pr oponent s ci t e do not r ef l ect t he cur r ent
st at e of sci ent i f i c knowl edge. See al so DeBoer , 973 F. Supp.
2d at 760- 68 ( maki ng f act ual f i ndi ngs and r eachi ng t he same
concl usi on) . I n f act , t he APA expl ai ns t hat , by pr event i ng
same- sex coupl es f r om mar r yi ng, t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws
act ual l y har m t he chi l dr en of same- sex coupl es by st i gmat i zi ng
t hei r f ami l i es and r obbi ng t hem of t he st abi l i t y, economi c
secur i t y, and t oget her ness t hat mar r i age f ost er s. The Supr eme
Cour t r eached a si mi l ar concl usi on i n Wi ndsor , i n whi ch i t
obser ved t hat f ai l i ng t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages
humi l i at es t ens of t housands of chi l dr en now bei ng r ai sed by
same- sex coupl es and makes i t even mor e di f f i cul t f or t he
chi l dr en t o under st and t he i nt egr i t y and cl oseness of t hei r own
f ami l y and i t s concor d wi t h ot her f ami l i es i n t hei r communi t y
and i n t hei r dai l y l i ves. 133 S. Ct . at 2694.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 60 of 98
61

We f i nd t he ar gument s t hat t he Opponent s and t hei r ami ci
make on t hi s i ssue ext r emel y per suasi ve. However , we need not
r esol ve t hi s di sput e because t he Pr oponent s opt i mal
chi l dr ear i ng ar gument f al t er s f or at l east t wo ot her r easons.
Fi r st , under hei ght ened scr ut i ny, st at es cannot suppor t a l aw
usi ng over br oad gener al i zat i ons about t he di f f er ent t al ent s,
capaci t i es, or pr ef er ences of t he gr oups i n quest i on. Uni t ed
St at es v. Vi r gi ni a, 518 U. S. 515, 533- 34 ( 1996) ( r ej ect i ng
i nher ent di f f er ences bet ween men and women as a j ust i f i cat i on
f or excl udi ng al l women f r om a t r adi t i onal l y al l - mal e mi l i t ar y
col l ege) ; see al so St anl ey v. I l l i noi s, 405 U. S. 645, 656- 58
( 1972) ( hol di ng t hat a st at e coul d not pr esume t hat unmar r i ed
f at her s wer e unf i t par ent s) . The Pr oponent s st at ement s
r egar di ng same- sex coupl es par ent i ng abi l i t y cer t ai nl y qual i f y
as over br oad gener al i zat i ons. Second, as we expl ai n above,
st r i ct scr ut i ny r equi r es congr ui t y bet ween a l aw s means and i t s
end. Thi s congr ui t y i s absent her e. Ther e i s absol ut el y no
r eason t o suspect t hat pr ohi bi t i ng same- sex coupl es f r om
mar r yi ng and r ef usi ng t o r ecogni ze t hei r out - of - st at e mar r i ages
wi l l cause same- sex coupl es t o r ai se f ewer chi l dr en or i mpel
mar r i ed opposi t e- sex coupl es t o r ai se mor e chi l dr en. The
Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws t her ef or e do not f ur t her Vi r gi ni a s
i nt er est i n channel i ng chi l dr en i nt o opt i mal f ami l i es, even i f
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 61 of 98
62

we wer e t o accept t he dubi ous pr oposi t i on t hat same- sex coupl es
ar e l ess capabl e par ent s.
Because t he Pr oponent s ar gument s ar e based on over br oad
gener al i zat i ons about same- sex par ent s, and because t her e i s no
l i nk bet ween banni ng same- sex mar r i age and pr omot i ng opt i mal
chi l dr ear i ng, t hi s ai m cannot suppor t t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age
Laws. Al l of t he Pr oponent s j ust i f i cat i ons f or t he Vi r gi ni a
Mar r i age Laws t her ef or e f ai l , and t he l aws cannot sur vi ve st r i ct
scr ut i ny.

V.
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we concl ude t hat t he Vi r gi ni a
Mar r i age Laws vi ol at e t he Due Pr ocess and Equal Pr ot ect i on
Cl auses of t he Four t eent h Amendment t o t he ext ent t hat t hey
pr event same- sex coupl es f r om mar r yi ng and pr ohi bi t Vi r gi ni a
f r om r ecogni zi ng same- sex coupl es l awf ul out - of - st at e
mar r i ages. We t her ef or e af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t s gr ant of
t he Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or summar y j udgment and i t s deci si on t o
enj oi n enf or cement of t he Vi r gi ni a Mar r i age Laws.
10


10
Because we ar e abl e t o r esol ve t he mer i t s of t he
Opponent s cl ai ms, we need not consi der t hei r al t er nat i ve
r equest f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. We assume t hat t he
di st r i ct cour t s deci si on t o enj oi n enf or cement of t he Vi r gi ni a
Mar r i age Laws encompassed a per manent i nj unct i on, whi ch t he
Pl ai nt i f f s r equest ed i n connect i on wi t h t hei r mot i on f or summar y
j udgment .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 62 of 98
63

We r ecogni ze t hat same- sex mar r i age makes some peopl e
deepl y uncomf or t abl e. However , i ner t i a and appr ehensi on ar e
not l egi t i mat e bases f or denyi ng same- sex coupl es due pr ocess
and equal pr ot ect i on of t he l aws. Ci vi l mar r i age i s one of t he
cor ner st ones of our way of l i f e. I t al l ows i ndi vi dual s t o
cel ebr at e and publ i cl y decl ar e t hei r i nt ent i ons t o f or m l i f el ong
par t ner shi ps, whi ch pr ovi de unpar al l el ed i nt i macy,
compani onshi p, emot i onal suppor t , and secur i t y. The choi ce of
whet her and whomt o mar r y i s an i nt ensel y per sonal deci si on t hat
al t er s t he cour se of an i ndi vi dual s l i f e. Denyi ng same- sex
coupl es t hi s choi ce pr ohi bi t s t hem f r om par t i ci pat i ng f ul l y i n
our soci et y, whi ch i s pr eci sel y t he t ype of segr egat i on t hat t he
Four t eent h Amendment cannot count enance.
AFFI RMED
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 63 of 98
NI EMEYER, Ci r cui t J udge, di ssent i ng:
To be cl ear , t hi s case i s not about whet her cour t s f avor or
di sf avor same- sex mar r i age, or whet her St at es r ecogni zi ng or
decl i ni ng t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i age have made good pol i cy
deci si ons. I t i s much nar r ower . I t i s about whet her a St at e s
deci si on not t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i age vi ol at es t he
Four t eent h Amendment of t he U. S. Const i t ut i on. Thus, t he
j udi ci al r esponse must be l i mi t ed t o an anal ysi s appl yi ng
est abl i shed const i t ut i onal pr i nci pl es.
The Commonweal t h of Vi r gi ni a has al ways r ecogni zed t hat
mar r i age i s based on t he mut ual agr eement of a man and a
woman t o mar r y each ot her , Bur ke v. Shaver , 23 S. E. 749, 749
( Va. 1895) , and t hat a mar r i age s pur poses i ncl ude est abl i shi ng
a f ami l y, t he cont i nuance of t he r ace, t he pr opagat i on of
chi l dr en, and t he gener al good of soci et y, Al exander v.
Kuykendal l , 63 S. E. 2d 746, 748 ( Va. 1951) . I n r ecent year s, i t
codi f i ed t hat under st andi ng i n sever al st at ut es, whi ch al so
expl i ci t l y excl ude f r om t he def i ni t i on of mar r i age t he uni on
of t wo men or t wo women. Mor eover , i n 2006 t he peopl e of
Vi r gi ni a amended t he Commonweal t h s Const i t ut i on t o def i ne
mar r i age as onl y bet ween one man and one woman. Va. Const .
ar t . I , 15- A.
The pl ai nt i f f s, who ar e i n l ong- t er m same- sex
r el at i onshi ps, ar e chal l engi ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 64 of 98
65

Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws under t he Due Pr ocess and Equal
Pr ot ect i on Cl auses of t he U. S. Const i t ut i on. The di st r i ct cour t
sust ai ned t hei r chal l enge, concl udi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have a
f undament al r i ght t o mar r y each ot her under t he Due Pr ocess
Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment and t her ef or e t hat any
r egul at i on of t hat r i ght i s subj ect t o st r i ct scr ut i ny.
Concl udi ng t hat Vi r gi ni a s def i ni t i on of mar r i age f ai l ed even
t o di spl ay a r at i onal r el at i onshi p t o a l egi t i mat e pur pose and
so must be vi ewed as const i t ut i onal l y i nf i r m, t he cour t st r uck
down Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws as unconst i t ut i onal and enj oi ned
t hei r enf or cement . Bost i c v. Rai ney, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 482
( E. D. Va. 2014) .
The maj or i t y agr ees. I t concl udes t hat t he f undament al
r i ght t o mar r i age i ncl udes a r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age and t hat
t her ef or e Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws must be r evi ewed under st r i ct
scr ut i ny. I t hol ds t hat Vi r gi ni a has f ai l ed t o advance a
compel l i ng st at e i nt er est j ust i f yi ng i t s def i ni t i on of mar r i age
as bet ween onl y a man and a woman. I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on,
however , t he maj or i t y has f ai l ed t o conduct t he necessar y
const i t ut i onal anal ysi s. Rat her , i t has si mpl y decl ar ed
syl l ogi st i cal l y t hat because mar r i age i s a f undament al r i ght
pr ot ect ed by t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause and same- sex mar r i age i s a
f or m of mar r i age, Vi r gi ni a s l aws decl i ni ng t o r ecogni ze same-
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 65 of 98
66

sex mar r i age i nf r i nge t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r i age and ar e
t her ef or e unconst i t ut i onal .
St at ed mor e par t i cul ar l y, t he maj or i t y s appr oach begi ns
wi t h t he par t i es agr eement t hat mar r i age i s a f undament al
r i ght . Ant e at 40. Fr om t her e, t he maj or i t y moves t o t he
pr oposi t i on 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 , ant e at 41, t hat i s not ci r cumscr i bed based on t he
char act er i st i cs of t he i ndi vi dual s seeki ng t o exer ci se t hat
r i ght , ant e at 42- 43. For suppor t , i t not es t hat t he Supr eme
Cour t has st r uck down st at e r est r i ct i ons pr ohi bi t i ng i nt er r aci al
mar r i age, see Lovi ng v. Vi r gi ni a, 388 U. S. 1 ( 1967) ; pr ohi bi t i ng
pr i son i nmat es f r om mar r yi ng wi t hout speci al appr oval , see
Tur ner v. Saf l ey, 482 U. S. 78 ( 1987) ; and pr ohi bi t i ng per sons
owi ng chi l d suppor t f r om mar r yi ng, see Zabl ocki v. Redhai l , 434
U. S. 374 ( 1978) . I t t hen decl ar es, i pse di xi t , 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 and i s t hus pr ot ect ed by t he subst ant i ve component of
t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause. Ant e at 41. I n r eachi ng t hi s
concl usi on, t he maj or i t y decl i ne[ s] t he Pr oponent s i nvi t at i on
t o char act er i ze t he r i ght at i ssue i n t hi s case as t he r i ght t o
same- sex mar r i age r at her t han si mpl y t he r i ght t o mar r y. Ant e
at 44. And i n doi ng so, i t expl i ci t l y bypasses t he r el evant
const i t ut i onal anal ysi s r equi r ed by Washi ngt on v. Gl ucksber g,
521 U. S. 702 ( 1997) , st at i ng t hat a Gl ucksber g anal ysi s i s not
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 66 of 98
67

necessar y because no new f undament al r i ght i s bei ng r ecogni zed.
Ant e at 41- 42.
Thi s anal ysi s i s f undament al l y f l awed because i t f ai l s t o
t ake i nt o account t hat t he mar r i age t hat has l ong been
r ecogni zed by t he Supr eme Cour t as a f undament al r i ght i s
di st i nct f r om t he newl y pr oposed r el at i onshi p of a same- sex
mar r i age. And t hi s f ai l ur e i s even mor e pr onounced by t he
maj or i t y s acknowl edgment t hat same- sex mar r i age i s a new not i on
t hat has not been r ecogni zed f or most of our count r y s
hi st or y. Ant e at 41. Mor eover , t he maj or i t y f ai l s t o expl ai n
how t hi s new not i on became i ncor por at ed i nt o t he t r adi t i onal
def i ni t i on of mar r i age except by l i ngui st i c mani pul at i on. Thus,
t he maj or i t y never asks t he quest i on necessar y t o f i ndi ng a
f undament al r i ght - - whet her same- sex mar r i age i s a r i ght t hat
i s 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 and
i mpl i ci t i n t he concept of or der ed l i ber t y, such t hat nei t her
l i ber t y nor j ust i ce woul d exi st i f [ i t was] sacr i f i ced.
Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 721 ( quot i ng Moor e v. East Cl evel and,
431 U. S. 494, 503 ( 1977) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; Pal ko v.
Connect i cut , 302 U. S. 319, 325- 26 ( 1937) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on
mar ks omi t t ed) .
At bot t om, i n hol di ng t hat same- sex mar r i age i s encompassed
by t he t r adi t i onal r i ght t o mar r y, t he maj or i t y avoi ds t he
necessar y const i t ut i onal anal ysi s, concl udi ng si mpl y and br oadl y
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 67 of 98
68

t hat t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r y - - by ever yone and t o
anyone - - may not be i nf r i nged. And i t does not ant i ci pat e or
addr ess t he pr obl ems t hat t hi s appr oach causes, f ai l i ng t o
expl ai n, f or exampl e, why t hi s br oad r i ght t o mar r y, as t he
maj or i t y def i nes i t , does not al so encompass t he r i ght of a
f at her t o mar r y hi s daught er or t he r i ght of any per son t o
mar r y mul t i pl e par t ner s.
I f t he maj or i t y wer e t o r ecogni ze and addr ess t he
di st i nct i on bet ween t he t wo r el at i onshi ps - - t he t r adi t i onal one
and t he new one - - as i t must , i t woul d si mpl y be unabl e t o
r each t he concl usi on t hat i t has r eached.
I r espect f ul l y submi t t hat , f or t he r easons t hat f ol l ow,
Vi r gi ni a was wel l wi t hi n i t s const i t ut i onal aut hor i t y t o adher e
t o i t s t r adi t i onal def i ni t i on of mar r i age as t he uni on of a man
and a woman and t o excl ude f r omt hat def i ni t i on t he uni on of t wo
men or t wo women. I woul d al so agr ee t hat t he U. S. Const i t ut i on
does not pr ohi bi t a St at e f r om def i ni ng mar r i age t o i ncl ude
same- sex mar r i age, as many St at es have done. Accor di ngl y, I
woul d r ever se t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t and uphol d
Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws.

I

As t he maj or i t y has obser ved, st at e r ecogni t i on of same- sex
mar r i age i s a new phenomenon. I t s hi st or y began i n t he ear l y
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 68 of 98
69

2000s wi t h t he r ecogni t i on i n some St at es of ci vi l uni ons. See,
e. g. , Vt . St at . Ann. t i t . 15, 1201- 1202 ( 2000) ; D. C. Code
32- 701 ( 1992) ( ef f ect i ve i n 2002) ; Cal . Fam. Code 297- 298
( 2003) ; N. J . St at . Ann. 26: 8A- 2 ( 2003) ; Conn. Gen. St at . Ann.
46b- 38nn ( 2006) , i nval i dat ed by Ker r i gan v. Comm r of Pub.
Heal t h, 957 A. 2d 407 ( Conn. 2008) . And t he not i on of same- sex
mar r i age i t sel f f i r st gai ned t r act i on i n 2003, when t he
Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t hel d t hat t he
Commonweal t h s pr ohi bi t i on on i ssui ng mar r i age l i censes t o same-
sex coupl es vi ol at ed t he St at e s Const i t ut i on - - t he f i r st
deci si on hol di ng t hat same- sex coupl es had a r i ght t o mar r y.
See Goodr i dge v. Dep t of Pub. Heal t h, 798 N. E. 2d 941, 968
( Mass. 2003) . I n 2009, Ver mont became t he f i r st St at e t o enact
l egi sl at i on r ecogni zi ng same- sex mar r i age, and, si nce t hen, 11
ot her St at es and t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a have al so done so.
See Conn. Gen. St at . 46b- 20 t o 46b- 20a; Del . Code Ann. t i t .
13, 101; D. C. Code 46- 401; Haw. Rev. St at . 572- 1; 750 I l l .
Comp. St at . 5/ 201; Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 19- A, 650- A; Md. Code
Ann. , Fam. Law 2- 201 t o 2- 202; Mi nn. St at . Ann. 517. 01 t o
517. 03; N. H. Rev. St at . Ann. 457: 1- a t o 457: 2; N. Y. Dom. Rel .
Law 10- a; R. I . Gen. Laws 15- 1- 1 et seq. ; Vt . St at . Ann. t i t .
15, 8; Wash. Rev. Code 26. 04. 010 t o 26. 04. 020. Mor eover ,
seven ot her St at es cur r ent l y al l ow same- sex mar r i age as a r esul t
of cour t r ul i ngs. See Hol l i ngswor t h v. Per r y, 133 S. Ct . 2652
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 69 of 98
70

( 2013) ; Var num v. Br i en, 763 N. W. 2d 862 ( I owa 2009) ; Goodr i dge,
798 N. E. 2d 941; Gar den St at e Equal i t y v. Dow, 79 A. 3d 1036 ( N. J .
2013) ; Gr i ego v. Ol i ver , 316 P. 3d 865 ( N. M. 2013) ; Gei ger v.
Ki t zhaber , ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, No. 6: 13- CV- 01834- MC, 2014 WL
2054264 ( D. Or . May 19, 2014) ; Whi t ewood v. Wol f , ___ F. Supp.
2d ___, No. 1: 13- CV- 1861, 2014 WL 2058105 ( M. D. Pa. May 20,
2014) . Thi s i s i ndeed a r ecent phenomenon.
Vi r gi ni a onl y r ecogni zes mar r i age as bet ween one man and
one woman, and, l i ke a maj or i t y of St at es, i t has codi f i ed t hi s
vi ew. See Va. Code Ann. 20- 45. 2 ( pr ohi bi t i ng same- sex
mar r i age and decl i ni ng t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages conduct ed
i n ot her St at es) ; i d. 20- 45. 3 ( pr ohi bi t i ng ci vi l uni ons and
si mi l ar ar r angement s bet ween per sons of t he same sex) . The bi l l
or i gi nal l y pr oposi ng what woul d become 20- 45. 3 not ed t he basi s
f or Vi r gi ni a s l egi sl at i ve deci si on:
[ H] uman mar r i age i s a consummat ed t wo i n one communi on
of mal e and f emal e per sons made possi bl e by sexual
di f f er ences whi ch ar e r epr oduct i ve i n t ype, whet her or
not t hey ar e r epr oduct i ve i n ef f ect or mot i vat i on.
Thi s pr esent r el at i onshi p r ecogni zes t he equal i t y of
mal e and f emal e per sons, and ant edat es r ecor ded
hi st or y.
Af f i r mat i on of Mar r i age Act , H. D. 751, 2004 Gen. Assembl y, Reg.
Sess. ( Va. 2004) . The bi l l pr edi ct ed t hat t he r ecogni t i on of
same- sex mar r i age woul d r adi cal l y t r ansf or m t he i nst i t ut i on of
mar r i age wi t h ser i ous and har mf ul consequences t o t he soci al
or der . I d. Vi r gi ni a al so amended i t s Const i t ut i on i n 2006 t o
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 70 of 98
71

def i ne mar r i age as onl y bet ween one man and one woman and t o
pr ohi bi t a l egal st at us f or r el at i onshi ps of unmar r i ed
i ndi vi dual s t hat i nt ends t o appr oxi mat e t he desi gn, qual i t i es,
si gni f i cance, or ef f ect s of mar r i age. Va. Const . ar t . I , 15-
A. The pl ai nt i f f s commenced t hi s act i on t o chal l enge t he
const i t ut i onal i t y of Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws.
Pl ai nt i f f s Ti mot hy B. Bost i c and Tony C. London have l i ved
i n a commi t t ed same- sex r el at i onshi p si nce 1989 and have l i ved
i n Vi r gi ni a si nce 1991. The t wo desi r ed t o mar r y i n Vi r gi ni a,
and on J ul y 1, 2013, when t hey appl i ed f or a mar r i age l i cense at
t he of f i ce of t he Cl er k of t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or t he Ci t y of
Nor f ol k, t hey wer e deni ed a l i cense and t ol d t hat same- sex
coupl es ar e i nel i gi bl e t o mar r y i n Vi r gi ni a. I n t hei r compl ai nt
chal l engi ng Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws, t hey al l eged t hat t hei r
i nabi l i t y t o mar r y has di sadvant aged t hem i n bot h economi c and
per sonal ways - - i t has pr event ed t hem f r om f i l i ng j oi nt t ax
r et ur ns, kept t hem f r om shar i ng heal t h i nsur ance on a t ax- f r ee
basi s, and si gnal ed t hat t hey ar e l ess t han ot her coupl es i n
Vi r gi ni a.
Pl ai nt i f f s Car ol Schal l and Mar y Townl ey l i kewi se have
l i ved i n a commi t t ed same- sex r el at i onshi p si nce 1985 and have
l i ved i n Vi r gi ni a t hr oughout t hei r 29- year r el at i onshi p. I n
1998, Townl ey gave bi r t h t o a daught er , E. S. - T. , whomSchal l and
Townl ey have r ai sed t oget her , and i n 2008, t he t wo t r avel ed t o
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 71 of 98
72

Cal i f or ni a wher e t hey wer e l awf ul l y mar r i ed. They al l eged i n
t hei r compl ai nt t hat because Vi r gi ni a does not r ecogni ze t hei r
mar r i age as val i d, t hey have been i nj ur ed i n sever al ways.
Schal l i s unabl e t o l egal l y adopt E. S. - T. , and t he t wo ar e
unabl e t o shar e heal t h i nsur ance on a t ax- f r ee basi s. The t wo
al so cl ai med t hat t hey and E. S. - T. have exper i enced st i gma as a
r esul t of Vi r gi ni a s nonr ecogni t i on of t hei r mar r i age.
The pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt , f i l ed i n J ul y 2013, al l eged t hat
Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws vi ol at e t hei r const i t ut i onal r i ght s
under t he Due Pr ocess and Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl auses of t he
Four t eent h Amendment . They named as def endant s Geor ge E.
Schaef er , I I I , Cl er k of Cour t f or t he Nor f ol k Ci r cui t Cour t , and
J anet M. Rai ney, t he St at e Regi st r ar of Vi t al Recor ds. A t hi r d
Vi r gi ni a of f i ci al , Mi chl e B. McQui gg, Cl er k of Cour t f or t he
Pr i nce Wi l l i am Count y Ci r cui t Cour t , was per mi t t ed t o i nt er vene
as a def endant . As el ect ed ci r cui t cour t cl er ks, Schaef er and
McQui gg ar e r esponsi bl e f or i ssui ng i ndi vi dual mar r i age l i censes
i n t he l ocal i t i es i n whi ch t hey ser ve. And Rai ney, as t he St at e
Regi st r ar of Vi t al Recor ds, i s r esponsi bl e f or ensur i ng
compl i ance wi t h Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws, i ncl udi ng t he l aws
chal l enged i n t hi s case.
Af t er t he par t i es f i l ed cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment ,
Vi r gi ni a under went a change i n admi ni st r at i ons, and t he newl y
el ect ed At t or ney Gener al of Vi r gi ni a, Mar k Her r i ng, f i l ed a
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 72 of 98
73

not i ce of a change i n hi s of f i ce s l egal posi t i on on behal f of
hi s cl i ent , def endant J anet Rai ney. Hi s not i ce st at ed t hat
because, i n hi s vi ew, t he l aws at i ssue wer e unconst i t ut i onal ,
hi s of f i ce woul d no l onger def end t hem on behal f of Rai ney. He
not ed, however , t hat Rai ney woul d cont i nue t o enf or ce t he l aws
unt i l t he cour t s r ul i ng. The ot her of f i ci al s have cont i nued t o
def end Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws, and, f or conveni ence, I r ef er
t o t he def endant s her ei n as Vi r gi ni a.
Fol l owi ng a hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t , by an or der and
memor andum dat ed Febr uar y 14, 2014, gr ant ed t he pl ai nt i f f s
mot i on f or summar y j udgment and deni ed Vi r gi ni a s cr oss- mot i on.
The cour t concl uded t hat same- sex par t ner s have a f undament al
r i ght t o mar r y each ot her under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he
Four t eent h Amendment , t hus r equi r i ng t hat Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age
l aws r est r i ct i ng t hat r i ght be nar r owl y dr awn t o f ur t her a
compel l i ng st at e i nt er est . I t concl uded t hat t he l aws di d not
meet t hat r equi r ement and, i ndeed, f ai l [ ed] t o di spl ay a
r at i onal r el at i onshi p t o a l egi t i mat e pur pose, and so must be
vi ewed as const i t ut i onal l y i nf i r m under even t he l east oner ous
l evel of scr ut i ny. Bost i c, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 482. St r i ki ng
down Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws, t he cour t al so i ssued an or der
enj oi ni ng t hei r enf or cement but st ayed t hat or der pendi ng
appeal . Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 73 of 98
74

I I

The pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat , as same- sex par t ner s, t hey
have a f undament al r i ght t o mar r y t hat i s pr ot ect ed by t he
subst ant i ve component of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he U. S.
Const i t ut i on, U. S. Const . amend. XI V, 1 ( pr ohi bi t i ng any St at e
f r om depr i vi ng any per son of l i f e, l i ber t y, or pr oper t y,
wi t hout due pr ocess of l aw) , and t hat Vi r gi ni a s l aws def i ni ng
mar r i age as onl y bet ween a man and a woman and excl udi ng same-
sex mar r i age i nf r i nge on t hat r i ght . The const i t ut i onal
anal ysi s f or adj udgi ng t hei r cl ai mi s wel l est abl i shed.
The Const i t ut i on cont ai ns no l anguage di r ect l y pr ot ect i ng
t he r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age or even t r adi t i onal mar r i age.
Any r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age, t her ef or e, woul d have t o be
f ound, t hr ough cour t i nt er pr et at i on, as a subst ant i ve component
of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause. See Pl anned Par ent hood of
Sout heast er n Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 846 ( 1992) ( Al t hough a
l i t er al r eadi ng of t he Cl ause mi ght suggest t hat i t gover ns onl y
t he pr ocedur es by whi ch a St at e may depr i ve per sons of l i ber t y,
f or at l east 105 year s . . . t he Cl ause has been under st ood t o
cont ai n a subst ant i ve component as wel l ) .
The subst ant i ve component of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause onl y
pr ot ect s f undament al l i ber t y i nt er est s. And t he Supr eme Cour t
has hel d t hat l i ber t y i nt er est s ar e onl y f undament al i f t hey
ar e, obj ect i vel y, deepl y r oot ed i n t hi s Nat i on s hi st or y and
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 74 of 98
75

t r adi t i on, and i mpl i ci t i n t he concept of or der ed l i ber t y,
such t hat nei t her l i ber t y nor j ust i ce woul d exi st i f t hey wer e
sacr i f i ced. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 720- 21 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed)
( quot i ng Moor e, 431 U. S. at 503 ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; Pal ko, 302
U. S. at 325- 26) . When det er mi ni ng whet her such a f undament al
r i ght exi st s, a cour t must al ways make 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 . I d. at 721
( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng Reno v. Fl or es, 507 U. S. 292, 302
( 1993) ) . Thi s car ef ul descr i pt i on i nvol ves char act er i zi ng t he
r i ght asser t ed i n i t s nar r owest t er ms. Thus, i n Gl ucksber g,
wher e t he Cour t was pr esent ed wi t h a due pr ocess chal l enge t o a
st at e st at ut e banni ng assi st ed sui ci de, t he Cour t nar r owl y
char act er i zed t he r i ght bei ng asser t ed i n t he f ol l owi ng manner :
The Cour t of Appeal s st at ed t hat [ p] r oper l y anal yzed,
t he f i r st i ssue t o be r esol ved i s whet her t her e i s a
l i ber t y i nt er est i n det er mi ni ng t he t i me and manner of
one s deat h, or , i n ot her wor ds, [ i ] s t her e a r i ght
t o di e? Si mi l ar l y, r espondent s asser t a l i ber t y t o
choose how t o di e and a r i ght t o cont r ol of one s
f i nal days, and descr i be t he asser t ed l i ber t y as t he
r i ght t o choose a humane, di gni f i ed deat h, and t he
l i ber t y t o shape deat h. As not ed above, we have a
t r adi t i on of car ef ul l y f or mul at i ng t he i nt er est at
st ake i n subst ant i ve- due- pr ocess cases. . . . The
Washi ngt on st at ut e at i ssue i n t hi s case pr ohi bi t s
ai d[ i ng] anot her per son t o at t empt sui ci de, and,
t hus, t he quest i on bef or e us i s whet her t he l i ber t y
speci al l y pr ot ect ed by t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause i ncl udes
a r i ght t o commi t sui ci de whi ch i t sel f i ncl udes a
r i ght t o assi st ance i n doi ng so.

Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 722- 23 ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal )
( emphasi s added) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 75 of 98
76

Under t hi s f or mul at i on, because t he Vi r gi ni a l aws at i ssue
pr ohi bi t mar r i age bet ween per sons of t he same sex, Va. Code
Ann. 20- 45. 2, t he quest i on bef or e us i s whet her t he l i ber t y
speci al l y pr ot ect ed by t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause i ncl udes a r i ght
t o same- sex mar r i age. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 723; see al so
J ackson v. Aber cr ombi e, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1095 ( D. Haw.
2012) ( [ M] i ssi ng f r om Pl ai nt i f f s asser t ed r i ght t o mar r y t he
per son of one s choi ce i s i t s cent er pi ece: t he r i ght t o mar r y
someone of t he same gender ) .
When a f undament al r i ght i s so i dent i f i ed, t hen any st at ut e
r est r i ct i ng t he r i ght i s subj ect t o st r i ct scr ut i ny and must be
nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o ser ve a compel l i ng st at e i nt er est .
Fl or es, 507 U. S. at 302. Such scr ut i ny i s ext r emel y di f f i cul t
f or a l aw t o wi t hst and, and, as such, t he Supr eme Cour t has
not ed t hat cour t s must be ext r emel y caut i ous i n r ecogni zi ng
f undament al r i ght s because doi ng so or di nar i l y r emoves f r eedom
of choi ce f r omt he hands of t he peopl e:
[ W] e ha[ ve] al ways been r el uct ant t o expand t he
concept of subst ant i ve due pr ocess because gui depost s
f or r esponsi bl e deci si onmaki ng i n t hi s unchar t er ed
ar ea ar e scar ce and open- ended. By ext endi ng
const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on t o an asser t ed r i ght or
l i ber t y i nt er est , we, t o a gr eat ext ent , pl ace t he
mat t er out si de t he ar ena of publ i c debat e and
l egi sl at i ve act i on. We must t her ef or e exer ci se t he
ut most car e whenever we ar e asked t o br eak new gr ound
i n t hi s f i el d, l est t he l i ber t y pr ot ect ed by t he Due
Pr ocess Cl ause be subt l y t r ansf or med i nt o t he pol i cy
pr ef er ences of t he Member s of t hi s Cour t .

Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 76 of 98
77

Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 720 ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )
( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng Col l i ns v. Ci t y of Har ker Hei ght s, 503
U. S. 115, 125 ( 1992) ) .
The pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case, as wel l as t he maj or i t y,
r ecogni ze t hat nar r owl y def i ni ng t he asser t ed l i ber t y i nt er est
woul d r equi r e t hem t o demonst r at e a new f undament al r i ght t o
same- sex mar r i age, whi ch t hey cannot do. Thus, t hey have made
no at t empt t o ar gue t hat same- sex mar r i age i s, 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, and
i mpl i ci t i n t he concept of or der ed l i ber t y. Gl ucksber g, 521
U. S. at 720- 21 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I ndeed, t hey
have acknowl edged t hat r ecogni t i on of same- sex mar r i age i s a
r ecent devel opment . See ant e at 41; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.
Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675, 2689 ( 2013) ( Unt i l r ecent year s, many
ci t i zens had not even consi der ed t he possi bi l i t y of [ same- sex
mar r i age] ( emphasi s added) ) ; i d. at 2715 ( Al i t o, J . ,
di ssent i ng) ( not i ng t hat i t i s beyond di sput e t hat t he r i ght t o
same- sex mar r i age i s not 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) ; Baehr v. Lewi n, 852 P. 2d 44, 57 ( Haw. 1993)
( [ W] e do not bel i eve t hat a r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age i s so
r oot ed i n t he t r adi t i ons and col l ect i ve consci ence of our peopl e
t hat f ai l ur e t o r ecogni ze i t woul d vi ol at e t he f undament al
pr i nci pl es of l i ber t y and j ust i ce t hat l i e at t he base of al l
our ci vi l and pol i t i cal i nst i t ut i ons) .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 77 of 98
78

I nst ead, t he pl ai nt i f f s and t he maj or i t y ar gue t hat t he
f undament al r i ght t o mar r i age t hat has pr evi ousl y been
r ecogni zed by t he Supr eme Cour t i s a br oad r i ght t hat shoul d
appl y t o t he pl ai nt i f f s wi t hout t he need t o r ecogni ze a new
f undament al r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age. They ar gue t hat t hi s
appr oach i s suppor t ed by t he f act t hat t he Supr eme Cour t di d not
nar r owl y def i ne t he r i ght t o mar r i age i n i t s deci si ons i n
Lovi ng, 388 U. S. at 12; Tur ner , 482 U. S. at 94- 96; or Zabl ocki ,
434 U. S. at 383- 86.
I t i s t r ue t hat , i n t hose cases, t he Cour t di d not
r ecogni ze new, separ at e f undament al r i ght s t o f i t t he f act ual
ci r cumst ances i n each case. For exampl e, i n Lovi ng, t he Cour t
di d not exami ne whet her i nt er r aci al mar r i age was, obj ect i vel y,
deepl y r oot ed i n our Nat i on s hi st or y and t r adi t i on. But i t was
not r equi r ed t o do so. Each of t hose cases i nvol ved a coupl e
asser t i ng a r i ght t o ent er i nt o a t r adi t i onal mar r i age of t he
t ype t hat has al ways been r ecogni zed si nce t he begi nni ng of t he
Nat i on - - a uni on bet ween one man and one woman. Whi l e t he
cont ext f or asser t i ng t he r i ght var i ed i n each of t hose cases,
i t var i ed onl y i n ways i r r el evant t o t he concept of mar r i age.
The t ype of r el at i onshi p sought was al ways t he t r adi t i onal , man-
woman r el at i onshi p t o whi ch t he t er m mar r i age was t her et of or e
al ways assumed t o r ef er . Thus, none of t he cases ci t ed by t he
pl ai nt i f f s and r el i ed on by t he maj or i t y i nvol ved t he asser t i on
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 78 of 98
79

of a br and new l i ber t y i nt er est . To t he cont r ar y, t hey i nvol ved
t he asser t i on of one of t he ol dest and most f undament al l i ber t y
i nt er est s i n our soci et y.
To now def i ne t he pr evi ousl y r ecogni zed f undament al r i ght
t o mar r i age as a concept t hat i ncl udes t he new not i on of
same- sex mar r i age amount s t o a di ct i onar y j ur i spr udence, whi ch
def i nes t er ms as conveni ent t o at t ai n an end.
I t i s t r ue t hat same- sex and opposi t e- sex r el at i onshi ps
shar e many at t r i but es, and, t her ef or e, mar r i ages i nvol vi ng t hose
r el at i onshi ps woul d, t o a subst ant i al ext ent , be si mi l ar . Two
per sons who ar e at t r act ed t o each ot her physi cal l y and
emot i onal l y and who l ove each ot her coul d publ i cl y pr omi se t o
l i ve wi t h each ot her t her eaf t er i n a mut ual l y desi r abl e
r el at i onshi p. These aspect s ar e t he same whet her t he per sons
ar e of t he same sex or di f f er ent sexes. Mor eover , bot h
r el at i onshi ps coul d successf ul l y f unct i on t o r ai se chi l dr en,
al t hough chi l dr en i n a same- sex r el at i onshi p woul d come f r om one
par t ner or f r om adopt i on. But t her e ar e al so si gni f i cant
di st i nct i ons bet ween t he r el at i onshi ps t hat can j ust i f y
di f f er ent i al t r eat ment by l awmaker s.
Onl y t he uni on of a man and a woman has t he capaci t y t o
pr oduce chi l dr en and t hus t o car r y on t he speci es. And mor e
i mpor t ant l y, onl y such a uni on cr eat es a bi ol ogi cal f ami l y uni t
t hat al so gi ves r i se t o a t r adi t i onal l y st abl e pol i t i cal uni t .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 79 of 98
80

Ever y per son s i dent i t y i ncl udes t he per son s par t i cul ar
bi ol ogi cal r el at i onshi ps, whi ch cr eat e uni que and meani ngf ul
bonds of ki nshi p t hat ar e ext r aor di nar i l y st r ong and endur i ng
and t hat have been af f or ded a pr i vi l eged pl ace i n pol i t i cal
or der t hr oughout human hi st or y. Soci et i es have accor di ngl y
enact ed l aws pr omot i ng t he f ami l y uni t - - such as t hose r el at i ng
t o sexual engagement , mar r i age r i t es, di vor ce, i nher i t ance, name
and t i t l e, and economi c mat t er s. And many soci et i es have f ound
f ami l i al bonds so cr i t i cal t hat t hey have el evat ed mar r i age t o
be a sacr ed i nst i t ut i on t r apped wi t h r el i gi ous r i t ual s. I n
t hese r espect s, t he t r adi t i onal man- woman r el at i onshi p i s
uni que.
Thus, when t he Supr eme Cour t has r ecogni zed, t hr ough t he
year s, t hat t he r i ght t o mar r y i s a f undament al r i ght , i t has
emphasi zed t he pr ocr eat i ve and soci al or der i ng aspect s of
t r adi t i onal mar r i age. For exampl e, i t has sai d: [ Mar r i age] i s
an i nst i t ut i on, i n t he mai nt enance of whi ch i n i t s pur i t y t he
publ i c i s deepl y i nt er est ed, f or i t i s 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, Maynar d v. Hi l l , 125 U. S. 190, 211
( 1888) ( emphasi s added) ; Mar r i age i s one of t he basi c ci vi l
r i ght s of man. Mar r i age and pr ocr eat i on ar e f undament al t o t he
ver y exi st ence and sur vi val of t he r ace, Ski nner v. Okl ahoma ex
r el . Wi l l i amson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 ( 1942) ; I t i s not sur pr i si ng
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 80 of 98
81

t hat t he deci si on t o mar r y has been pl aced on t he same l evel of
i mpor t ance as deci si ons r el at i ng t o pr ocr eat i on, chi l dbi r t h,
chi l dr ear i ng, and f ami l y r el at i onshi ps. . . . [ Mar r i age] i s t he
f oundat i on of t he f ami l y i n our soci et y, Zabl ocki , 434 U. S. at
386.
Because t her e exi st deep, f undament al di f f er ences bet ween
t r adi t i onal and same- sex mar r i age, t he pl ai nt i f f s and t he
maj or i t y er r by conf l at i ng t he t wo r el at i onshi ps under t he
l oosel y dr awn r ubr i c of t he r i ght t o mar r i age. Rat her , t o
obt ai n const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on, t hey woul d have t o show t hat
t he r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age i s i t sel f deepl y r oot ed i n our
Nat i on s hi st or y. They have not at t empt ed t o do so and coul d
not succeed i f t hey wer e so t o at t empt .
I n an ef f or t t o br i dge t he obvi ous di f f er ences bet ween t he
t r adi t i onal r el at i onshi p and t he new same- sex r el at i onshi p, t he
pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r i age has
al ways been based on, and def i ned by, t he const i t ut i onal l i ber t y
t o sel ect t he par t ner of one s choi ce. ( Emphasi s added) . They
r el y heavi l y on Lovi ng t o asser t t hi s cl ai m. I n Lovi ng, t he
Cour t hel d t hat a st at e r egul at i on r est r i ct i ng i nt er r aci al
mar r i age i nf r i nged on t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r i age.
Lovi ng, 388 U. S. at 12. But nowher e i n Lovi ng di d t he Cour t
suggest t hat t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r y i ncl udes t he
unr est r i ct ed r i ght t o mar r y whomever one chooses, as t he
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 81 of 98
82

pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m. I ndeed, Lovi ng expl i ci t l y r el i ed on Ski nner
and Mur phy, and bot h of t hose cases di scussed mar r i age i n
t r adi t i onal , pr ocr eat i ve t er ms. I d.
Thi s r eadi ng of Lovi ng i s f or t i f i ed by t he Cour t s summar y
di smi ssal of Baker v. Nel son, 191 N. W. 2d 185 ( Mi nn. 1971) ,
appeal di smi ssed, 409 U. S. 810 ( 1972) , j ust f i ve year s af t er
Lovi ng was deci ded. I n Baker , t he Mi nnesot a Supr eme Cour t
i nt er pr et ed a st at e st at ut e s use of t he t er m mar r i age t o be
one of common usage meani ng a uni on bet ween per sons of t he
opposi t e sex and t hus not i ncl udi ng same- sex mar r i age. I d. at
186. On appeal , t he Supr eme Cour t di smi ssed t he case summar i l y
f or want of a subst ant i al f eder al quest i on. 409 U. S. at 810.
The Cour t s act i on i n cont ext i ndi cat es t hat t he Cour t di d not
vi ew Lovi ng or t he cases t hat pr eceded i t as pr ovi di ng a
f undament al r i ght t o an unr est r i ct ed choi ce of mar r i age par t ner .
Ot her wi se, t he st at e cour t s deci si on i n Baker woul d i ndeed have
pr esent ed a subst ant i al f eder al quest i on.
I n shor t , Lovi ng si mpl y hel d t hat r ace, whi ch i s compl et el y
unr el at ed t o t he i nst i t ut i on of mar r i age, coul d not be t he basi s
of mar i t al r est r i ct i ons. See Lovi ng, 388 U. S. at 12. To
st r et ch Lovi ng s hol di ng t o say t hat t he r i ght t o mar r y i s not
l i mi t ed by gender and sexual or i ent at i on i s t o i gnor e t he
i next r i cabl e, bi ol ogi cal l i nk bet ween mar r i age and pr ocr eat i on
t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has al ways r ecogni zed. See Wi ndsor , 133
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 82 of 98
83

S. Ct . at 2689 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat t hr oughout hi st or y, mar r i age
bet ween a man and a woman no doubt had been t hought of by most
peopl e as essent i al t o t he ver y def i ni t i on of t hat t er m and t o
i t s r ol e and f unct i on) . The st at e r egul at i on st r uck down i n
Lovi ng, l i ke t hose i n Zabl ocki and Tur ner , had no r el at i onshi p
t o t he f oundat i onal pur poses of mar r i age, whi l e t he gender of
t he i ndi vi dual s i n a mar r i age cl ear l y does. Thus, t he maj or i t y
er r s, as di d t he di st r i ct cour t , by i nt er pr et i ng t he Supr eme
Cour t s mar r i age cases as est abl i shi ng a r i ght t hat i ncl udes
same- sex mar r i age.
The pl ai nt i f f s al so l ar gel y i gnor e t he pr obl em wi t h t hei r
posi t i on t hat i f t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r i age i s based on
t he const i t ut i onal l i ber t y t o sel ect t he par t ner of one s
choi ce, as t hey cont end, t hen t hat l i ber t y woul d al so ext end t o
i ndi vi dual s seeki ng st at e r ecogni t i on of ot her t ypes of
r el at i onshi ps t hat St at es cur r ent l y r est r i ct , such as pol ygamous
or i ncest uous r el at i onshi ps. Cf . Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620,
648- 50 ( 1996) ( Scal i a, J . , di ssent i ng) . Such an ext ensi on woul d
be a r adi cal shi f t i n our under st andi ng of mar i t al
r el at i onshi ps. Laws r est r i ct i ng pol ygamy ar e f oundat i onal t o
t he Uni on i t sel f , havi ng been a condi t i on on t he ent r ance of
Ar i zona, New Mexi co, Okl ahoma, and Ut ah i nt o st at ehood. I d.
Whi l e t he pl ai nt i f f s do at t empt t o assur e us t hat such l aws ar e
saf e because t her e ar e wei ght y gover nment i nt er est s under l yi ng
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 83 of 98
84

t hem, such an ar gument does not bear on t he quest i on of whet her
t he r i ght i s f undament al . The gover nment s i nt er est s woul d
i nst ead be r el evant onl y t o whet her t he r est r i ct i on coul d meet
t he r equi si t e st andar d of r evi ew. And because l aws pr ohi bi t i ng
pol ygamous or i ncest uous mar r i ages r est r i ct i ndi vi dual s r i ght
t o choose whom t hey woul d l i ke t o mar r y, t hey woul d, under t he
pl ai nt i f f s appr oach, have t o be exami ned under st r i ct scr ut i ny.
Per haps t he gover nment s i nt er est woul d be st r ong enough t o
enabl e such l aws t o sur vi ve st r i ct scr ut i ny, but r egar dl ess,
t oday s deci si on woul d t r ul y be a sweepi ng one i f i t coul d be
under st ood t o mean t hat i ndi vi dual s have a f undament al r i ght t o
ent er i nt o a mar r i age wi t h any per son, or any peopl e, of t hei r
choosi ng.
At bot t om, t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r i age does not
i ncl ude a r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age. Under t he Gl ucksber g
anal ysi s t hat we ar e t hus bound t o conduct , t her e i s no new
f undament al r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age. Vi r gi ni a s l aws
r est r i ct i ng mar r i age t o man- woman r el at i onshi ps must t her ef or e
be uphel d i f t her e i s any r at i onal basi s f or t he l aws.

I I I

Under r at i onal - basi s r evi ew, cour t s ar e r equi r ed t o gi ve
heavy def er ence t o l egi sl at ur es. The st andar d
si mpl y r equi r es cour t s t o det er mi ne whet her t he
cl assi f i cat i on i n quest i on i s, at a mi ni mum,
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 84 of 98
85

r at i onal l y r el at ed t o l egi t i mat e gover nment al goal s.
I n ot her wor ds, t he f i t bet ween t he enact ment and t he
publ i c pur poses behi nd i t need not be mat hemat i cal l y
pr eci se. As l ong as [ t he l egi sl at ur e] has a
r easonabl e basi s f or adopt i ng t he cl assi f i cat i on,
whi ch can i ncl ude r at i onal specul at i on unsuppor t ed by
evi dence or empi r i cal dat a, t he st at ut e wi l l pass
const i t ut i onal must er . The r at i onal basi s st andar d
t hus embodi es an i dea cr i t i cal t o t he cont i nui ng
vi t al i t y of our democr acy: t hat cour t s ar e not
empower ed t o si t as a super l egi sl at ur e t o j udge t he
wi sdom or desi r abi l i t y of l egi sl at i ve pol i cy
det er mi nat i ons.
Wi l ki ns v. Gaddy, 734 F. 3d 344, 347- 48 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( emphasi s
added) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng FCC v. Beach Commc ns, I nc. ,
508 U. S. 307, 315 ( 1993) ; Ci t y of New Or l eans v. Dukes, 427 U. S.
297, 303 ( 1976) ) . St at ut es subj ect t o r at i onal - basi s r evi ew
bear [ ] a st r ong pr esumpt i on of val i di t y, and t hose at t acki ng
t he r at i onal i t y of t he l egi sl at i ve cl assi f i cat i on have t he
bur den t o negat i ve ever y concei vabl e basi s whi ch mi ght suppor t
[ t hem] . Beach Commc ns, 508 U. S. at 314- 15 ( emphasi s added)
( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Lehnhausen v. Lake Shor e Aut o Par t s
Co. , 410 U. S. 356, 364 ( 1973) ) .
I n cont endi ng t hat t her e i s a r at i onal basi s f or i t s
mar r i age l aws, Vi r gi ni a has emphasi zed t hat chi l dr en ar e bor n
onl y t o one man and one woman and t hat mar r i age pr ovi des a
f ami l y st r uct ur e by whi ch t o nour i sh and r ai se t hose chi l dr en.
I t cl ai ms t hat a bi ol ogi cal f ami l y i s a mor e st abl e envi r onment ,
and i t r enounces any i nt er est i n encour agi ng same- sex mar r i age.
I t ar gues t hat t he pur pose of i t s mar r i age l aws i s t o channel
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 85 of 98
86

t he pr esumpt i ve pr ocr eat i ve pot ent i al of man- woman r el at i onshi ps
i nt o endur i ng mar i t al uni ons so t hat i f any chi l dr en ar e bor n,
t hey ar e mor e l i kel y t o be r ai sed i n st abl e f ami l y uni t s.
( Emphasi s omi t t ed) . Vi r gi ni a hi ghl i ght s especi al l y mar r i age s
t endency t o pr omot e st abi l i t y i n t he event of unpl anned
pr egnanci es, asser t i ng t hat i t has a compel l i ng i nt er est i n
addr essi ng t he par t i cul ar concer ns associ at ed wi t h t he bi r t h of
unpl anned chi l dr en. . . . [ C] hi l dr en bor n f r om unpl anned
pr egnanci es wher e t hei r mot her and f at her ar e not mar r i ed t o
each ot her ar e at si gni f i cant r i sk of bei ng r ai sed out si de
st abl e f ami l y uni t s headed by t hei r mot her and f at her j oi nt l y.
Vi r gi ni a st at es t hat i t s j ust i f i cat i ons f or pr omot i ng
t r adi t i onal mar r i age al so expl ai n i t s l ack of i nt er est i n
pr omot i ng same- sex mar r i age. I t mai nt ai ns t hat a t r adi t i onal
mar r i age i s excl usi vel y [ an] opposi t e- sex i nst i t ut i on
. . . i next r i cabl y l i nked t o pr ocr eat i on and bi ol ogi cal
ki nshi p, Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2718 ( Al i t o, J . , di ssent i ng) ,
and t hat same- sex mar r i age pr i or i t i zes t he emot i ons and sexual
at t r act i ons of t he t wo par t ner s wi t hout any necessar y l i nk t o
r epr oduct i on. I t asser t s t hat i t has no i nt er est i n l i censi ng
adul t s l ove.
The pl ai nt i f f s accept t hat f ami l y st abi l i t y i s a l egi t i mat e
st at e goal , but t hey ar gue t hat l i censi ng same- sex r el at i onshi ps
wi l l not bur den Vi r gi ni a s achi evement of t hat goal . They
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 86 of 98
87

cont end t hat t her e i s si mpl y no evi dence or r eason t o bel i eve
t hat pr ohi bi t i ng gay men and l esbi ans f r om mar r yi ng wi l l
i ncr ease r esponsi bl e pr ocr eat i on among het er osexual s.
But t hi s ar gument does not negat e any of t he r at i onal
j ust i f i cat i ons f or Vi r gi ni a s l egi sl at i on. St at es ar e per mi t t ed
t o sel ect i vel y pr ovi de benef i t s t o onl y cer t ai n gr oups when
pr ovi di ng t hose same benef i t s t o ot her gr oups woul d not f ur t her
t he St at e s ul t i mat e goal s. See J ohnson v. Robi nson, 415 U. S.
361, 383 ( 1974) ( When . . . t he i ncl usi on of one gr oup pr omot es
a l egi t i mat e gover nment al pur pose, and t he addi t i on of ot her
gr oups woul d not , we cannot say t hat t he st at ut e' s
cl assi f i cat i on of benef i ci ar i es and nonbenef i ci ar i es i s
i nvi di ousl y di scr i mi nat or y) . Her e, t he Commonweal t h s goal of
ensur i ng t hat unpl anned chi l dr en ar e r ai sed i n st abl e homes i s
f ur t her ed onl y by of f er i ng t he benef i t s of mar r i age t o opposi t e-
sex coupl es. As Vi r gi ni a cor r ect l y asser t s, t he r el evant
i nqui r y her e i s not whet her excl udi ng same- sex coupl es f r om
mar r i age f ur t her s [ Vi r gi ni a s] i nt er est i n st eer i ng man- woman
coupl es i nt o mar r i age. Rat her , t he r el evant i nqui r y i s whet her
al so r ecogni zi ng same- sex mar r i ages woul d f ur t her Vi r gi ni a s
i nt er est s. Wi t h r egar d t o i t s i nt er est i n ensur i ng st abl e
f ami l i es i n t he event of unpl anned pr egnanci es, i t woul d not .
The pl ai nt i f f s r epl y t hat even i f t hi s i s so, such l i ne-
dr awi ng onl y makes sense i f t he r esour ces at i ssue ar e scar ce,
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 87 of 98
88

j ust i f yi ng t he St at e s l i mi t ed pr ovi si on of t hose r esour ces.
They ar gue t hat because [ m] ar r i age l i censes . . . ar e not a
r emot el y scar ce commodi t y, t he l i ne- dr awi ng done by Vi r gi ni a s
mar r i age l aws i s i r r at i onal . But t hi s f undament al l y
mi sunder st ands t he nat ur e of mar r i age benef i t s. When t he
Commonweal t h gr ant s a mar r i age, i t does not si mpl y gi ve t he
coupl e a pi ece of paper and a t i t l e. Rat her , i t pr ovi des a
subst ant i al subsi dy t o t he mar r i ed coupl e - - economi c benef i t s
t hat , t he pl ai nt i f f s r epeat edl y asser t , ar e bei ng deni ed t hem.
For exampl e, mar r i ed coupl es ar e per mi t t ed t o f i l e st at e i ncome
t axes j oi nt l y, l ower i ng t hei r t ax r at es. See Va. Code Ann.
58. 1- 324. Al t hough i ndi r ect , such benef i t s ar e cl ear l y
subsi di es t hat come at a cost t o t he Commonweal t h. Vi r gi ni a i s
wi l l i ng t o pr ovi de t hese subsi di es because t hey encour age
opposi t e- sex coupl es t o mar r y, whi ch t ends t o pr ovi de chi l dr en
f r om unpl anned pr egnanci es wi t h a mor e st abl e envi r onment .
Under J ohnson, t he Commonweal t h i s not obl i gat ed t o si mi l ar l y
subsi di ze same- sex mar r i ages, si nce doi ng so coul d not possi bl y
f ur t her i t s i nt er est . Thi s i s no di f f er ent f r om t he subsi di es
pr ovi ded i n ot her cases wher e t he Supr eme Cour t has uphel d l i ne-
dr awi ng, such as Medi car e benef i t s, Mat t hews v. Di az, 426 U. S.
67, 83- 84 ( 1976) , or vet er ans educat i onal benef i t s, J ohnson,
415 U. S. at 383.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 88 of 98
89

As an addi t i onal ar gument , Vi r gi ni a mai nt ai ns t hat mar r i age
i s a [ c] ompl ex soci al i nst i t ut i on[ ] wi t h a set of nor ms,
r ul es, pat t er ns, and expect at i ons t hat power f ul l y ( al bei t of t en
unconsci ousl y) af f ect peopl e s choi ces, act i ons, and
per spect i ves. I t asser t s t hat di scar di ng t he t r adi t i onal
def i ni t i on of mar r i age wi l l have f ar - r eachi ng consequences t hat
cannot easi l y be pr edi ct ed, i ncl udi ng sever [ i ng] t he i nher ent
l i nk bet ween pr ocr eat i on . . . and mar r i age . . . [ and] i n
t ur n . . . power f ul l y convey[ i ng] t hat mar r i age exi st s t o
advance adul t desi r es r at her t han [ t o] ser v[ e] chi l dr en s
needs.
The pl ai nt i f f s agr ee t hat changi ng t he def i ni t i on of
mar r i age may have unf or eseen soci al ef f ect s, but t hey ar gue t hat
such pr edi ct i ons shoul d not be enough t o save Vi r gi ni a s
mar r i age l aws because si mi l ar j ust i f i cat i ons wer e r ej ect ed i n
Lovi ng. The Lovi ng Cour t , however , was not appl yi ng r at i onal -
basi s r evi ew. See Lovi ng, 388 U. S. at 11- 12. We ar e on a
di f f er ent f oot i ng her e. Under r at i onal - basi s r evi ew,
l egi sl at i ve choi ces may be based on r at i onal specul at i on
unsuppor t ed by evi dence or empi r i cal dat a. Beach Commc ns, 508
U. S. at 315. Sound pol i cymaki ng of t en r equi r es l egi sl at or s t o
f or ecast f ut ur e event s and t o ant i ci pat e t he l i kel y i mpact of
t hese event s based on deduct i ons and i nf er ences f or whi ch
compl et e empi r i cal suppor t may be unavai l abl e. Tur ner Br oad.
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 89 of 98
90

Sys. , I nc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 665 ( 1994) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) .
And t he l egi sl at ur e i s f ar bet t er equi pped t han t he j udi ci ar y
t o make t hese eval uat i ons and ul t i mat el y deci de on a cour se of
act i on based on i t s pr edi ct i ons. I d. at 665- 66. I n enact i ng
i t s mar r i age l aws, Vi r gi ni a pr edi ct ed t hat changi ng t he
def i ni t i on of mar r i age woul d have a negat i ve ef f ect on chi l dr en
and on t he f ami l y st r uct ur e. Al t hough ot her St at es do not shar e
t hose concer ns, such eval uat i ons wer e nonet hel ess squar el y
wi t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t he Commonweal t h s l egi sl at ur e and i t s
ci t i zens, who vot ed t o amend Vi r gi ni a s Const i t ut i on i n 2006.
Vi r gi ni a has undoubt edl y ar t i cul at ed suf f i ci ent r at i onal
bases f or i t s mar r i age l aws, and I woul d f i nd t hat t hose bases
const i t ut i onal l y j ust i f y t he l aws. Those l aws ar e gr ounded on
t he bi ol ogi cal connect i on of men and women; t he pot ent i al f or
t hei r havi ng chi l dr en; t he f ami l y or der needed i n r ai si ng
chi l dr en; and, on a l ar ger scal e, t he pol i t i cal or der r esul t i ng
f r om st abl e f ami l y uni t s. Mor eover , I woul d add t hat t he
t r adi t i onal mar r i age r el at i onshi p encour ages a f ami l y st r uct ur e
t hat i s i nt er gener at i onal , gi vi ng chi l dr en not onl y a st r uct ur e
i n whi ch t o be r ai sed but al so an i dent i t y and a st r ong
r el at i onal cont ext . The mar r i age of a man and a woman t hus
r at i onal l y pr omot es a cor r el at i on bet ween bi ol ogi cal or der and
pol i t i cal or der . Because Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws ar e
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 90 of 98
91

r at i onal l y r el at ed t o i t s l egi t i mat e pur poses, t hey wi t hst and
r at i onal - basi s scr ut i ny under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause.

I V

The maj or i t y does not subst ant i vel y addr ess t he pl ai nt i f f s
second ar gument - - t hat Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws i nvi di ousl y
di scr i mi nat e on t he basi s of sexual or i ent at i on, i n vi ol at i on of
t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause - - si nce i t f i nds t hat t he l aws
i nf r i nge on t he pl ai nt i f f s f undament al r i ght t o mar r i age. But
because I f i nd no f undament al r i ght i s i nf r i nged by t he l aws, I
al so addr ess di scr i mi nat i on under t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause.
The Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause, whi ch f or bi ds any St at e f r om
deny[ i ng] t o any per son wi t hi n i t s j ur i sdi ct i on t he equal
pr ot ect i on of t he l aws, U. S. Const . amend. XI V, 1, pr ohi bi t s
i nvi di ous di scr i mi nat i on among cl asses of per sons. Some
cl assi f i cat i ons - - such as t hose based on r ace, al i enage, or
nat i onal or i gi n - - ar e so sel domr el evant t o t he achi evement of
any l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est t hat l aws gr ounded i n such
consi der at i ons ar e deemed t o r ef l ect pr ej udi ce and ant i pat hy - -
a vi ew t hat t hose i n t he bur dened cl ass ar e not as wor t hy or
deser vi ng as ot her s. Ci t y of Cl ebur ne v. Cl ebur ne Li vi ng Ct r . ,
473 U. S. 432, 440 ( 1985) . Any l aws based on such suspect
cl assi f i cat i ons ar e subj ect t o st r i ct scr ut i ny. See i d. I n a
si mi l ar vei n, cl assi f i cat i ons based on gender ar e quasi -
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 91 of 98
92

suspect and cal l f or i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny because t hey
f r equent l y bear [ ] no r el at i on t o abi l i t y t o per f or m or
cont r i but e t o soci et y and t hus gener al l y pr ovi de[ ] no sensi bl e
gr ound f or di f f er ent i al t r eat ment . I d. at 440- 41 ( quot i ng
Fr ont i er o v. Ri char dson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 ( 1973) ( pl ur al i t y
opi ni on) ) ; see al so Cr ai g v. Bor en, 429 U. S. 190, 197 ( 1976) .
Laws subj ect t o i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny must be subst ant i al l y
r el at ed t o an i mpor t ant gover nment obj ect i ve. See Uni t ed St at es
v. Vi r gi ni a, 518 U. S. 515, 533 ( 1996) .
But when a r egul at i on adver sel y af f ect s member s of a cl ass
t hat i s not suspect or quasi - suspect , t he r egul at i on i s
pr esumed t o be val i d and wi l l be sust ai ned i f t he
cl assi f i cat i on dr awn by t he st at ut e i s r at i onal l y r el at ed t o a
l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est . Ci t y of Cl ebur ne, 473 U. S. at 440
( emphasi s added) . Mor eover , t he Supr eme Cour t has made i t cl ear
t hat
wher e i ndi vi dual s i n t he gr oup af f ect ed by a l aw have
di st i ngui shi ng char act er i st i cs r el evant t o i nt er est s
t he St at e has t he aut hor i t y t o i mpl ement , t he cour t s
have been ver y r el uct ant , as t hey shoul d be i n our
f eder al syst em and wi t h our r espect f or t he separ at i on
of power s, t o cl osel y scr ut i ni ze l egi sl at i ve choi ces
as t o whet her , how, and t o what ext ent t hose i nt er est s
shoul d be pur sued. I n such cases, t he Equal
Pr ot ect i on Cl ause r equi r es onl y a r at i onal means t o
ser ve a l egi t i mat e end.
I d. at 441- 42 ( emphasi s added) . Thi s i s based on t he
under st andi ng t hat equal pr ot ect i on of t he l aws must coexi st
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 92 of 98
93

wi t h t he pr act i cal necessi t y t hat most l egi sl at i on cl assi f i es
f or one pur pose or anot her , wi t h r esul t i ng di sadvant age t o
var i ous gr oups or per sons. Romer , 517 U. S. at 631.
The pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws shoul d
be subj ect ed t o some l evel of hei ght ened scr ut i ny because t hey
di scr i mi nat e on t he basi s of sexual or i ent at i on. Yet t hey
concede t hat nei t her t he Supr eme Cour t nor t he Four t h Ci r cui t
has ever appl i ed hei ght ened scr ut i ny t o a cl assi f i cat i on based
on sexual or i ent at i on. They ur ge t hi s cour t t o do so f or t he
f i r st t i me. Gover ni ng pr ecedent , however , counsel s ot her wi se.
I n Romer v. Evans, t he Supr eme Cour t di d not empl oy any
hei ght ened l evel of scr ut i ny i n eval uat i ng a Col or ado
const i t ut i onal amendment t hat pr ohi bi t ed st at e and l ocal
gover nment s f r om enact i ng l egi sl at i on t hat woul d al l ow per sons
t o cl ai m any mi nor i t y st at us, quot a pr ef er ences, pr ot ect ed
st at us, or . . . di scr i mi nat i on based on sexual or i ent at i on.
Romer , 517 U. S. at 624. I n hol di ng t he amendment
unconst i t ut i onal under t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause, t he Cour t
appl i ed r at i onal - basi s r evi ew. See i d. at 631- 33.
And t he Supr eme Cour t made no change as t o t he appr opr i at e
l evel of scr ut i ny i n i t s mor e r ecent deci si on i n Wi ndsor , whi ch
hel d Sect i on 3 of t he Def ense of Mar r i age Act unconst i t ut i onal .
The Cour t was pr esent ed an oppor t uni t y t o al t er t he Romer
st andar d but di d not do so. Al t hough i t di d not st at e t he l evel
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 93 of 98
94

of scr ut i ny bei ng appl i ed, i t di d expl i ci t l y r el y on r at i onal -
basi s cases l i ke Romer and Depar t ment of Agr i cul t ur e v. Mor eno,
413 U. S. 528 ( 1973) . See Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2693. I n hi s
di ssent i ng opi ni on i n Wi ndsor , J ust i ce Scal i a t hus not ed, As
near l y as I can t el l , t he Cour t agr ees [ t hat r at i onal - basi s
r evi ew appl i es] ; i t s opi ni on does not appl y st r i ct scr ut i ny, and
i t s cent r al pr oposi t i ons ar e t aken f r om r at i onal - basi s cases
l i ke Mor eno. I d. at 2706 ( Scal i a, J . , di ssent i ng) .
Fi nal l y, we have concl uded t hat r at i onal - basi s r evi ew
appl i es t o cl assi f i cat i ons based on sexual or i ent at i on. See
Veney v. Wyche, 293 F. 3d 726, 731- 32 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002) . I n Veney,
a pr i soner f i l ed a 1983 act i on al l egi ng t hat he had been
di scr i mi nat ed agai nst on t he basi s of sexual pr ef er ence and
gender . I d. at 729- 30. We not ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f [ di d] not
al l ege t hat he [ was] a member of a suspect cl ass. Rat her , he
cl ai m[ ed] t hat he ha[ d] been di scr i mi nat ed agai nst on t he basi s
of sexual pr ef er ence and gender . Out si de t he pr i son cont ext ,
t he f or mer i s subj ect t o r at i onal basi s r evi ew, see Romer v.
Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 631- 32 ( 1996) . I d. at 731- 32 ( f oot not e
omi t t ed) .
The vast maj or i t y of ot her cour t s of appeal s have r eached
t he same concl usi on. See Cook v. Gat es, 528 F. 3d 42, 61 ( 1st
Ci r . 2008) ( Romer nowher e suggest ed t hat t he Cour t r ecogni zed a
new suspect cl ass. Absent addi t i onal gui dance f r om t he Supr eme
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 94 of 98
95

Cour t , we j oi n our si st er ci r cui t s i n decl i ni ng t o r ead Romer as
r ecogni zi ng homosexual s as a suspect cl ass f or equal pr ot ect i on
pur poses) ; Pr i ce- Cor nel i son v. Br ooks, 524 F. 3d 1103, 1113- 14 &
n. 9 ( 10t h Ci r . 2008) ( A gover nment of f i ci al
can . . . di st i ngui sh bet ween i t s ci t i zens on t he basi s of
sexual or i ent at i on, i f t hat cl assi f i cat i on bear s a r at i onal
r el at i on t o some l egi t i mat e end ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) ) ; Ci t i zens f or Equal Pr ot . v. Br uni ng, 455 F. 3d 859,
865- 66 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) ( di scussi ng Romer and r eachi ng t he
concl usi on t hat [ t ] hough t he most r el evant pr ecedent s ar e
mur ky, we concl ude f or a number of r easons t hat [ Nebr aska s
same- sex mar r i age ban] shoul d r ecei ve r at i onal - basi s r evi ew
under t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause, r at her t han a hei ght ened
l evel of j udi ci al scr ut i ny) ; J ohnson v. J ohnson, 385 F. 3d 503,
532 ( 5t h Ci r . 2004) ( [ A] st at e vi ol at es t he Equal Pr ot ect i on
Cl ause i f i t di sadvant ages homosexual s f or r easons l acki ng any
r at i onal r el at i onshi p t o l egi t i mat e gover nment al ai ms) ; Lof t on
v. Sec y of Dep t of Chi l dr en & Fami l y Ser vs. , 358 F. 3d 804, 818
( 11t h Ci r . 2004) ( [ A] l l of our si st er ci r cui t s t hat have
consi der ed t he quest i on have decl i ned t o t r eat homosexual s as a
suspect cl ass. Because t he pr esent case i nvol ves nei t her a
f undament al r i ght nor a suspect cl ass, we r evi ew
t he . . . st at ut e under t he r at i onal - basi s st andar d ( f oot not e
omi t t ed) ) ; Equal . Found. of Gr eat er Ci nci nnat i , I nc. v. Ci t y of
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 95 of 98
96

Ci nci nnat i , 128 F. 3d 289, 294, 300 ( 6t h Ci r . 1997) ( appl yi ng
r at i onal - basi s r evi ew i n uphol di ng a ci t y char t er amendment
r est r i ct i ng homosexual r i ght s and st at i ng t hat i n Romer , t he
Cour t di d not assess Col or ado Amendment 2 under st r i ct
scr ut i ny or i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny st andar ds, but i nst ead
ul t i mat el y appl i ed r at i onal r el at i onshi p st r i ct ur es t o t hat
enact ment and r esol ved t hat t he Col or ado st at e const i t ut i onal
pr ovi si on di d not i nvade any f undament al r i ght and di d not
t ar get any suspect cl ass or quasi - suspect cl ass) ; Ben- Shal om v.
Mar sh, 881 F. 2d 454, 464 ( 7t h Ci r . 1989) ( appl yi ng r at i onal -
basi s r evi ew pr i or t o t he announcement of Romer ) ; Woodwar d v.
Uni t ed St at es, 871 F. 2d 1068, 1076 ( Fed. Ci r . 1989) ( The
Supr eme Cour t has i dent i f i ed onl y t hr ee suspect cl asses: r aci al
st at us, nat i onal ancest r y and et hni c or i gi nal , and al i enage.
Two ot her cl assi f i cat i ons have been i dent i f i ed by t he Cour t as
quasi - suspect : gender and i l l egi t i macy. [ Pl ai nt i f f ] woul d have
t hi s cour t add homosexual i t y t o t hat l i st . Thi s we decl i ne t o
do ( ci t at i ons and f oot not e omi t t ed) ) . But see Smi t hKl i ne
BeechamCor p. v. Abbot t Labs. , 740 F. 3d 471, 481 ( 9t h Ci r . 2014)
( appl yi ng hei ght ened scr ut i ny t o a Bat son chal l enge t hat was
based on sexual or i ent at i on) ; Wi ndsor v. Uni t ed St at es, 699 F. 3d
169, 180- 85 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) ( f i ndi ng i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny
appr opr i at e i n assessi ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of Sect i on 3 of
t he Def ense of Mar r i age Act ) .
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 96 of 98
97

Thus, f ol l owi ng Supr eme Cour t and Four t h Ci r cui t pr ecedent ,
I woul d hol d t hat Vi r gi ni a s mar r i age l aws ar e subj ect t o
r at i onal - basi s r evi ew. Appl yi ng t hat st andar d, I concl ude t hat
t her e i s a r at i onal basi s f or t he l aws, as expl ai ned i n Par t
I I I , above. At bot t om, I agr ee wi t h J ust i ce Al i t o s r easoni ng
t hat [ i ] n aski ng t he cour t t o det er mi ne t hat [ Vi r gi ni a s
mar r i age l aws ar e] subj ect t o and vi ol at e[ ] hei ght ened scr ut i ny,
[ t he pl ai nt i f f s] t hus ask us t o r ul e t hat t he pr esence of t wo
member s of t he opposi t e sex i s as r at i onal l y r el at ed t o mar r i age
as whi t e ski n i s t o vot i ng or a Y- chr omosome i s t o t he abi l i t y
t o admi ni st er an est at e. That i s a st r i ki ng r equest and one
t hat unel ect ed j udges shoul d pause bef or e gr ant i ng. Wi ndsor ,
133 S. Ct . at 2717- 18 ( Al i t o, J . , di ssent i ng) .

V

Whet her t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i age i s an ongoi ng and
hi ghl y engaged pol i t i cal debat e t aki ng pl ace acr oss t he Nat i on,
and t he St at es ar e di vi ded on t he i ssue. The maj or i t y of cour t s
have st r uck down st at ut es t hat deny r ecogni t i on of same- sex
mar r i age, doi ng so al most excl usi vel y on t he i dea t hat same- sex
mar r i age i s encompassed by t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r y t hat
i s pr ot ect ed by t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause. Whi l e I expr ess no
vi ewpoi nt on t he mer i t s of t he pol i cy debat e, I do st r ongl y
di sagr ee wi t h t he asser t i on t hat same- sex mar r i age i s subj ect t o
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 234 Filed: 07/28/2014 Pg: 97 of 98
98

t he same const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i ons as t he t r adi t i onal r i ght t o
mar r y.
Because t her e i s no f undament al r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age
and t her e ar e r at i onal r easons f or not r ecogni zi ng i t , j ust as
t her e ar e r at i onal r easons f or r ecogni zi ng i t , I concl ude t hat
we, i n t he Thi r d Br anch, must al l ow t he St at es t o enact
l egi sl at i on on t he subj ect i n accor dance wi t h t hei r pol i t i cal
pr ocesses. The U. S. Const i t ut i on does not , i n my j udgment ,
r est r i ct t he St at es pol i cy choi ces on t hi s i ssue. I f gi ven t he
choi ce, some St at es wi l l sur el y r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i age and
some wi l l sur el y not . But t hat i s, t o be sur e, t he beaut y of
f eder al i sm.
I woul d r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t s j udgment and def er t o
Vi r gi ni a s pol i t i cal choi ce i n def i ni ng mar r i age as onl y bet ween
one man and one woman.

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

You might also like