J ONATHAN P. ROBI CHEAUX, ET AL. CI VI L ACTI ON v. NO. 13- 5090 C/ W NO. 14- 97 & NO. 14- 327
J AMES D. CALDWELL, SECTI ON " F" LOUI SI ANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. ORDER AND REASONS Bef or e t he Cour t ar e cr oss mot i ons f or summar y j udgment . The Cour t f i nds t hat def endant s i n t hi s passi onat el y char ged nat i onal i ssue have t he mor e per suasi ve ar gument . The St at e of Loui si ana has a l egi t i mat e i nt er est under a r at i onal basi s st andar d of r evi ew f or addr essi ng t he meani ng of mar r i age t hr ough t he democr at i c pr ocess. For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment i s DENI ED and def endant s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment i s GRANTED. Backgr ound These consol i dat ed cases chal l enge t he const i t ut i onal i t y of Loui si ana' s ban on same- sex mar r i age and i t s choi ce not t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages t hat ar e l awf ul i n ot her st at es. Pl ai nt i f f s i ncl ude si x same- sex coupl es who l i ve i n Loui si ana and ar e val i dl y mar r i ed under t he l aw of anot her st at e, one same- sex coupl e who seeks t he r i ght t o mar r y i n Loui si ana, and t he For umf or 1 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 32 Equal i t y Loui si ana, I nc. , a nonpr of i t advocacy or gani zat i on. Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on, 1 whi ch def i nes mar r i age as bet ween one man and one woman, and ar t i cl e 3520( B) of t he Loui si ana Ci vi l Code, 2 whi ch deni es r ecogni t i on of same- sex mar r i ages cont r act ed i n ot her st at es as bei ng agai nst Loui si ana' s st r ong publ i c pol i cy, vi ol at e t hei r const i t ut i onal r i ght s t o Equal Pr ot ect i on and Due Pr ocess. 3 They 1 Mar r i age i n t he st at e of Loui si ana shal l consi st onl y of t he uni on of one man and one woman. No of f i ci al or cour t of t he st at e of Loui si ana shal l const r ue t hi s const i t ut i on or any st at e l aw t o r equi r e t hat mar r i age or t he l egal i nci dent s t her eof be conf er r ed upon any member of any uni on ot her t han t he uni on of one man and one woman. A l egal st at us i dent i cal t o or subst ant i al l y si mi l ar t o t hat of mar r i age f or unmar r i ed i ndi vi dual s shal l not be val i d or r ecogni zed. No of f i ci al or cour t of t he st at e of Loui si ana shal l r ecogni ze any mar r i age cont r act ed i n any ot her j ur i sdi ct i on whi ch i s not t he uni on of one man and one woman. La. Const . ar t . 12, 15. 2 A pur por t ed mar r i age bet ween per sons of t he same sex vi ol at es a st r ong publ i c pol i cy of t he st at e of Loui si ana and such a mar r i age cont r act ed i n anot her st at e shal l not be r ecogni zed i n t hi s st at e f or any pur pose, i ncl udi ng t he asser t i on of any r i ght or cl ai mas a r esul t of t he pur por t ed mar r i age. La. Ci v. Code ar t . 3520( B) . 3 Pl ai nt i f f s i n Case Number 14- 97 chal l enge Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on and Loui si ana Ci vi l Code ar t i cl e 3520( B) . I n t hei r pr ayer f or r el i ef i n t hei r compl ai nt , t hose pl ai nt i f f s mi st akenl y r ef er t o Code ar t i cl e 3520( B) ( 1) , whi ch does not exi st , and t o Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 18 of t he Const i t ut i on, but el sewher e i n t he compl ai nt make cl ear t hat t hey mean Sect i on 15. Pl ai nt i f f s i n Case Number 14- 327 chal l enge " Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on, Ar t i cl e 3520( B) of t he 2 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 2 of 32 al so ur ge t hat t he Loui si ana Depar t ment of Revenue I nf or mat i on Bul l et i n No. 13- 024, 4 whi ch r equi r es same- sex coupl es l awf ul l y mar r i ed i n ot her st at es t o cer t i f y on t hei r Loui si ana st at e i ncome Loui si ana Ci vi l Code, and any ot her Loui si ana l aws t hat pur por t t o deny r ecogni t i on t o t he mar r i ages of Pl ai nt i f f s and ot her same- sex coupl es who ar e mar r i ed under t he l aw of anot her j ur i sdi ct i on. " Al t hough t hose pl ai nt i f f s do not speci f i cal l y i dent i f y t he " ot her Loui si ana l aws" i n t hei r compl ai nt , pl ai nt i f f s' suppl ement al br i ef submi t t ed on J ul y 16, 2014 r equest s " decl ar at or y j udgment hol di ng t hat Loui si ana Ci vi l Code ar t i cl es 86, 89, 3520( B) , and Ar t i cl e 12, Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on ar e unconst i t ut i onal . . . and t he Cour t shoul d enj oi n t hei r enf or cement . " Ar t i cl e 86 of t he Loui si ana Ci vi l Code, l i ke Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on, def i nes mar r i age as " a l egal r el at i onshi p bet ween a man and a woman. " Code ar t i cl e 89, si mi l ar t o Code ar t i cl e 3520, pr ohi bi t s pur por t ed mar r i ages bet ween per sons of t he same sex. 4 The bul l et i n pr ovi des i n par t : I n compl i ance wi t h t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on, t he Loui si ana Depar t ment of Revenue shal l not r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages when det er mi ni ng f i l i ng st at us. I f a t axpayer ' s f eder al f i l i ng st at us of mar r i ed f i l i ng j oi nt l y, mar r i ed f i l i ng separ at el y or qual i f yi ng wi dow i s pur suant t o I RS Revenue Rul i ng 2013- 17 [ r ul i ng t hat same- sex coupl es l egal l y mar r i ed i n st at es t hat r ecogni ze such mar r i ages wi l l be t r eat ed as mar r i ed f or f eder al t ax pur poses] , t he t axpayer must f i l e a separ at e Loui si ana r et ur n as si ngl e, head of househol d or qual i f yi ng wi dow, as appl i cabl e. The t axpayer ( s) who f i l ed a f eder al r et ur n pur suant t o I RS Revenue Rul i ng 2013- 17 may not f i l e a Loui si ana st at e i ncome t ax r et ur n as mar r i ed f i l i ng j oi nt l y, mar r i ed f i l i ng separ at el y or qual i f yi ng wi dow. The t axpayer must pr ovi de t he same f eder al i ncome t ax i nf or mat i on on t he Loui si ana St at e Ret ur n t hat woul d have been pr ovi ded pr i or t o t he i ssuance of I nt er nal Revenue Ser vi ce Rul i ng 2013- 17. La. Revenue I nf o. Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 ( Sept . 13, 2013) . 3 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 3 of 32 t ax r et ur ns t hat t hey ar e si ngl e, vi ol at es t hei r Fi r st Amendment f r eedom of speech. Pl ai nt i f f s name Ti m Bar f i el d, t he Loui si ana Secr et ar y of Revenue, Devi n Geor ge, t he Loui si ana St at e Regi st r ar , and Kat hy Kl i eber t , t he Loui si ana Secr et ar y of Heal t h and Hospi t al s, as def endant s. The par t i es have f i l ed cr oss mot i ons f or summar y j udgment . Al l i ssues have been br i ef ed and t he Cour t has hel d or al ar gument . 5 I . Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56 i nst r uct s t hat summar y j udgment i s pr oper i f t he r ecor d di scl oses no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act such t hat t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. No genui ne di sput e of f act exi st s i f t he r ecor d t aken as a whol e coul d not l ead a r at i onal t r i er of f act t o f i nd f or t he non- movi ng par t y. See Mat sushi t a El ec. I ndus. Co. v. Zeni t h Radi o Cor p. , 475 U. S. 574, 586 ( 1986) . A genui ne di sput e of f act exi st s onl y " i f t he evi dence i s such t hat a r easonabl e j ur y coul d r et ur n a ver di ct f or t he non- movi ng par t y. " Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 248 ( 1986) . The Cour t emphasi zes t hat t he mer e ar gued exi st ence of a f act ual di sput e does not def eat an ot her wi se pr oper l y suppor t ed mot i on. See i d. Ther ef or e, " [ i ] f t he evi dence i s mer el y 5 Pl ai nt i f f s have seemi ngl y abandoned t hei r Ful l Fai t h and Cr edi t Cl ause cl ai m. 4 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 4 of 32 col or abl e, or i s not si gni f i cant l y pr obat i ve, " summar y j udgment i s appr opr i at e. I d. at 249- 50 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Summar y j udgment i s al so pr oper i f t he par t y opposi ng t he mot i on f ai l s t o est abl i sh an essent i al el ement of hi s case. See Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t , 477 U. S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1986) . I n t hi s r egar d, t he non- movi ng par t y must do mor e t han si mpl y deny t he al l egat i ons r ai sed by t he movi ng par t y. See Donaghey v. Ocean Dr i l l i ng & Expl or at i on Co. , 974 F. 2d 646, 649 ( 5t h Ci r . 1992) . Rat her , he must come f or war d wi t h compet ent evi dence, such as af f i davi t s or deposi t i ons, t o but t r ess hi s cl ai ms. I d. Fi nal l y, i n eval uat i ng t he summar y j udgment mot i on, t he Cour t must r ead 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. Ander son, 477 U. S. at 255. Thi s nat i onal same- sex mar r i age st r uggl e ani mat es a cl ash bet ween convi ct i ons r egar di ng t he val ue of st at e deci si ons r eached by way of t he democr at i c pr ocess as cont r ast ed wi t h per sonal , genui ne, and si ncer e l i f est yl e choi ces r ecogni t i on. The def endant s mai nt ai n t hat mar r i age i s a l egi t i mat e concer n of st at e l aw and pol i cy. That i t may be r i ght l y r egul at ed because of what f or cent ur i es has been under st ood t o be i t s r ol e. Not so say pl ai nt i f f s, who vi gor ousl y submi t i f t wo peopl e wi sh t o ent er i nt o a bond of commi t ment and car e and have t hat bond r ecogni zed by l aw as a mar r i age, t hey shoul d be f r ee t o do so, and t hei r choi ce shoul d be r ecogni zed by l aw as a mar r i age; never mi nd t he hi st or i c aut hor i t y of t he st at e or t he democr at i c pr ocess. These ar e 5 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 5 of 32 ear nest and t hought f ul di sput es, but t hey have become soci et y' s l at est shor t f use. One may be f i r ml y r esol ved i n f avor of same- sex mar r i age, ot her s may be j ust as det er mi ned t hat mar r i age i s bet ween a man and a woman. The chal l enge i s how and wher e best t o r esol ve t hese conf l i ct i ng not i ons about what i s mar r i age and what i nf l uence shoul d t he U. S. Supr eme Cour t deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Wi ndsor have? See 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( 2013) . I I . A. The Cour t f i r st t akes up t he most hef t y const i t ut i onal i ssue: Equal Pr ot ect i on. The Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Const i t ut i on commands t hat no st at e shal l deny 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. The Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause. . . essent i al l y di r ect s t hat al l per sons si mi l ar l y si t uat ed be t r eat ed al i ke. St onebur ner v. Sec' y of t he Ar my, 152 F. 3d 485, 491 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1998) ( ci t i ng Ci t y of Cl ebur ne, Tex. v. Cl ebur ne Li vi ng Ct r . , 473 U. S. 432, 440 ( 1985) ) . However , i f a l aw nei t her bur dens a f undament al r i ght nor t ar get s a suspect cl ass, t he Supr eme Cour t has hel d, t he l egi sl at i ve cl assi f i cat i on [ wi l l sur vi ve] so l ong as i t bear s a r at i onal r el at i on t o some l egi t i mat e end. Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 631 ( 1996) ( ci t i ng Hel l er v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319- 20 ( 1993) ) ; Ci t y of Cl ebur ne, 473 U. S. at 440 ( The gener al r ul e i s t hat l egi sl 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 6 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 6 of 32 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 . ) . I n t he Equal Pr ot ect i on j oust , a cour t ' s st andar d of r evi ew i s cent r al t o t hi s anal ysi s. At pl ay ar e t hr ee speci al i zed l i nes of t hought : r at i onal basi s, i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny, and hei ght ened scr ut i ny. Rat i onal basi s i s t he l east aust er e; hei ght ened scr ut i ny t he most ar duous. When conduct i ng r at i onal basi s r evi ew, t he Supr eme Cour t has i nst r uct ed t hat we wi l l not over t ur n such [ gover nment act i on] unl ess t he var yi ng t r eat ment of di f f er ent gr oups or per sons i s so unr el at ed t o t he achi evement of any combi nat i on of l egi t i mat e pur poses t hat we can onl y concl ude t hat t he [ gover nment s] act i ons wer e i r r at i onal . Ki mel v. Fl . Bd. of Regent s, 528 U. S. 62, 84 ( 2000) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . " I n t he or di nar y case, a l aw wi l l be sust ai ned i f i t can be sai d t o advance a l egi t i mat e gover nment i nt er est , even i f t he l aw seems unwi se or wor ks t o t he di sadvant age of a par t i cul ar gr oup, or i f t he r at i onal e seems t enuous. " Romer , 517 U. S. at 632 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I f , however , hei ght ened scr ut i ny, t he most unf or gi vi ng, i s war r ant ed, t hen a l aw must be " necessar y t o t he accompl i shment " of " a compel l i ng gover nment al i nt er est . " Pal mor e v. Si dot i , 466 U. S. 429, 432 ( 1984) . 6 6 Al l f eder al cour t deci si ons post - Wi ndsor have st r i cken same- sex mar r i age bans under al l t hr ee st andar ds. Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298 ( 4 t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ; Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733 ( 10 t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen 7 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 7 of 32 Pl ai nt i f f s submi t t hat Loui si ana' s const i t ut i onal amendment and Ci vi l Code ar t i cl e vi ol at e t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause by pr ohi bi t i ng same- sex mar r i age wi t hi n Loui si ana, and by decl i ni ng t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages t hat ar e l awf ul i n ot her st at es. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he l aws ar e subj ect t o hei ght ened scr ut i ny anal ysi s because t hey di scr i mi nat e on t he basi s of sexual or i ent at i on and gender . Def endant s count er t hat t he l aws t r i gger r at i onal basi s r evi ew, whi ch i s sat i sf i ed by Loui si ana' s l egi t i mat e i nt er est i n l i nki ng chi l dr en wi t h i nt act f ami l i es f or med by t hei r bi ol ogi cal par ent s, and by ensur i ng t hat f undament al soci al change occur s by soci al consensus t hr ough democr at i c pr ocesses. See Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2697 ( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) ( " [ F] or i t i s ent i r el y expect ed t hat st at e def i ni t i ons woul d ' var y, subj ect t o v. Heber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10 t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) ; Br enner v. Scot t , Nos. 14- 107 & 14- 138, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 116684 ( N. D. Fl . Aug. 21, 2014) ; Bur ns v. Hi ckenl ooper , No. 14- 1817, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 100894 ( D. Col o. J ul y 23, 2014) ; Love v. Beshear , No. 13- 750, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 89119 ( W. D. Ky. J ul y 1, 2014) ; Baski n v. Bogan, Nos. 14- 355, 14- 404 & 14- 406, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 86114 ( S. D. I nd. J une 25, 2014) ; Wol f v. Wal ker , No. 14- 64, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 77125 ( W. D. Wi s. J une 6, 2014) ; Whi t ewood v. Wol f , No. 13- 1861, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68771 ( M. D. Pa. May 20, 2014) ; Gei ger v. Ki t zhaber , Nos. 13- 1834 & 13- 2256, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68171 ( D. Or . May 19, 2014) ; Lat t a v. Ot t er , No. 13- 482, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 66417 ( D. I daho May 13, 2014) ; DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 ( E. D. Mi ch. 2014) ; Tanco v. Hasl am, No. 13- 1159, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 33463 ( M. D. Tenn. Mar ch 14, 2014) ; De Leon v. Per r y, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 ( W. D. Tex. 2014) ; Lee v. Or r , No. 13- 8719, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 21620 ( N. D. I l l . Feb. 21, 2014) ; McGee v. Col e, No. 13- 24068, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 10864 ( S. D. W. Va. J an. 29, 2014) . Cont r a Sevci k v. Sandoval , 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 ( D. Nev. 2012) ( appl yi ng r at i onal basi s t o r ej ect an Equal Pr ot ect i on chal l enge t o Nevada' s same- sex mar r i age ban) . See Uni t ed St at es v. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( 2013) . 8 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 8 of 32 const i t ut i onal guar ant ees, f r omone St at e t o t he next . ' " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . Def endant s poi nt out t hat over 30 st at es choose not t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages, and some 20 st at es haven chosen t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages i n f r ee and open debat e t hr ough t he democr at i c pr ocess. Bot h si des i nvoke t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( Kennedy, J . , maj or i t y opi ni on) . But Wi ndsor does l i t t l e mor e t han gi ve bot h si des i n t hi s case somet hi ng t o hope f or . I n Wi ndsor , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat Sect i on 3 of t he Feder al Def ense of Mar r i age Act ( DOMA) , whi ch def i ned mar r i age as a uni on bet ween one man and one woman onl y, vi ol at ed Equal Pr ot ect i on and Due Pr ocess pr i nci pl es when appl i ed t o New Yor k st at e l aw per mi t t i ng same- sex mar r i age. I d. at 2693. Obser vi ng " DOMA' s unusual devi at i on f r omt he usual t r adi t i on of r ecogni zi ng and accept i ng st at e def i ni t i ons of mar r i age, " t he Cour t i nf er r ed t hat Congr ess had act ed wi t h a di scr i mi nat or y pur pose. I d. The Cour t r easoned, t o t hat poi nt , t hat " ' [ d] i scr i mi nat i ons of an unusual char act er especi al l y suggest car ef ul consi der at i on t o det er mi ne whet her t hey ar e obnoxi ous t o t he const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on. ' " I d. at 2692 ( quot i ng Romer , 517 U. S. at 633) . 7 7 Wi ndsor , i n t he cont ext of t he i ssues pr esent ed t o t hi s Cour t , i s uncl ear ( cont r ar y t o t he concl usi ons i n many r ecent f eder al cour t deci si ons) . I t i s by i t s own t er ms, l i mi t ed. I t s " opi ni on and i t s hol di ng ar e conf i ned t o t hose l awf ul mar r i ages. " 133 S. Ct . at 2696. However , Wi ndsor al so r ef er ences an amor phous but al l ur i ng " evol vi ng under st andi ng of t he meani ng of equal i t y. " I d. at 2693. Hence t hi s Cour t ' s unease t hat Wi ndsor mer el y of f er s 9 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 9 of 32 As t o st andar d of r evi ew, Wi ndsor st ar kl y avoi ds ment i on of hei ght ened scr ut i ny. Pl ai nt i f f s' ef f or t t o equat e Wi ndsor ' s el usi ve phr ase " car ef ul consi der at i on" wi t h i nt er medi at e or hei ght ened scr ut i ny seems l i ke i nt el l ect ual anar chy. I n t he past , t he Supr eme Cour t consi der ed r at i onal basi s as f ul f i l l i ng t he not i on of " car ef ul consi der at i on. " See Romer , 517 U. S. at 633- 35 ( r equi r i ng " car ef ul consi der at i on" by appl yi ng a r at i onal basi s st andar d of r evi ew) . I f t he Supr eme Cour t meant t o appl y hei ght ened scr ut i ny, i t woul d have sai d so. 8 Mor e i mpor t ant l y, t he Cour t onl y r equi r ed " car ef ul consi der at i on" because of Congr ess' odd i nt r usi on on what t he Cour t r epeat edl y emphasi zed was hi st or i c and essent i al st at e aut hor i t y t o def i ne mar r i age. By t hat same l ogi c, no addi t i onal or di f f er ent consi der at i on i s war r ant ed her e, wher e Loui si ana i s act i ng squar el y wi t hi n t he scope of i t s t r adi t i onal aut hor i t y, as under scor ed by J ust i ce Kennedy. See Wi ndsor , 133 S. bi t s and pi eces of hope t o bot h si des. See al so i d. at 2696 ( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) ( " The Cour t does not have bef or e i t , and t he l ogi c of i t s opi ni on does not deci de, t he di st i nct quest i on whet her t he St at es, i n t he exer ci se of t hei r ' hi st or i c and essent i al aut hor i t y t o def i ne t he mar i t al r el at i on, ' . . . may cont i nue t o ut i l i ze t he t r adi t i onal def i ni t i on of mar r i age. " ) . 8 Thi s Cour t i s not per suaded by t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ' s deci si on t o t he cont r ar y i n Smi t hKl i ne Beecham Cor p. v. Abbot t Labs, 740 F. 3d 471 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2014) . Even l ess expl i ci t r egar di ng t he appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew ar e t he spl i t deci si ons i n t he Tent h and Four t h Ci r cui t s. See Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298 ( 4 t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ; Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733 ( 10 t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen v. Heber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10 t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) . 10 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 10 of 32 Ct . at 2693. Al t hough bot h si des seek t he saf e haven of Wi ndsor t o t hei r si de of t hi s nat i onal st r uggl e, and i t i s cer t ai nl y wi t hout di sput e t hat t he Supr eme Cour t cor r ect l y di scr edi t ed t he t ai nt ed unconst i t ut i onal r esul t t hat DOMA had on democr at i cal l y debat ed and t hen adopt ed New Yor k st at e l aw bl essi ng same- sex mar r i ages, t hi s Cour t f i nds i t di f f i cul t t o mi ni mi ze, i ndeed, i gnor e, t he hi gh cour t ' s power f ul r emi nder i n Wi ndsor : The r ecogni t i on of ci vi l mar r i ages i s cent r al t o st at e domest i c r el at i ons l aw appl i cabl e t o i t s r esi dent s and ci t i zens. See Wi l l i ams v. Nor t h Car ol i na, 317 U. S. 287, 298 ( 1942) ( " Each st at e as a sover ei gn has a r i ght f ul and l egi t i mat e concer n i n t he mar i t al st at us of per sons domi ci l ed wi t hi n i t s bor der s" ) . The def i ni t i on of mar r i age i s t he f oundat i on of t he St at e' s br oader aut hor i t y t o r egul at e t he subj ect of domest i c r el at i ons wi t h r espect t o t he " [ p] r ot ect i on of of f spr i ng, pr oper t y i nt er est s, and t he enf or cement of mar i t al r esponsi bi l i t i es. " I bi d. " [ T] he st at es, at t he t i me of t he adopt i on of t he Const i t ut i on, possessed f ul l power over t he subj ect of mar r i age and di vor ce. . . [ and] t he Const i t ut i on del egat ed no aut hor i t y t o t he Gover nment of t he Uni t ed St at es on t he subj ect of mar r i age and di vor ce. " Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 525 ( 1906) ; see al so I n r e Bur r us, 136 U. S. 586, 593- 594 ( 1890) ( " The whol e subj ect of t he domest i c r el at i ons of husband and wi f e, par ent and chi l d, bel ongs t o t he l aws of t he St at es and not t o t he l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es" ) . I d. at 2691 ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . J ust i ce Kennedy f ur t her i nst r uct s: The si gni f i cance of st at e r esponsi bi l i t i es f or t he def i ni t i on and r egul at i on of mar r i age dat es t o t he Nat i on' s begi nni ng; f or " when t he Const i t ut i on was adopt ed t he common under st andi ng was t hat t he domest i c r el at i ons of husband and wi f e and par ent and chi l d wer e mat t er s r eser ved t o t he St at es. " Ohi o ex r el . Popovi ci v. Agl er , 280 U. S. 379, 383- 384 ( 1930) . Mar r i age l aws 11 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 11 of 32 var y i n some r espect s f r omSt at e t o St at e. . . . I d. And, f i nal l y, he emphasi zes why: The r esponsi bi l i t y of t he St at es f or t he r egul at i on of domest i c r el at i ons i s an i mpor t ant i ndi cat or of t he subst ant i al soci et al i mpact t he St at e' s cl assi f i cat i ons have i n t he dai l y l i ves and cust oms of i t s peopl e. I d. at 2693. Wi ndsor l eaves unchanged " t he concer ns f or st at e di ver si t y and sover ei gnt y. " See i d. at 2697 ( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) . But even apar t f r omWi ndsor , pl ai nt i f f s seek t o j ust i f y t he appl i cat i on of hei ght ened scr ut i ny because, t hey ar gue, Loui si ana' s l aws and Const i t ut i on di scr i mi nat e based on sexual or i ent at i on. They f ai l , however , t o r ecogni ze t hat nei t her t he Supr eme Cour t nor t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t has ever bef or e def i ned sexual or i ent at i on as a pr ot ect ed cl ass, despi t e oppor t uni t i es t o do so. See, e. g. , Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( maj or i t y opi ni on) ; Romer , 517 U. S. 620; J ohnson v. J ohnson, 385 F. 3d 503 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Baski n v. Bogan, Nos. 14- 355, 14- 404 & 14- 406, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 86114, at *34- *35 ( S. D. I nd. J une 25, 2014) ( 7 t h Ci r cui t pr ecedent mandat es appl i cat i on of r at i onal basi s scr ut i ny t o t he i ssue of sexual or i ent at i on di scr i mi nat i on) . Admi t t edl y, ot her f eder al cour t s t hr oughout t he count r y have spoken as i f t hey wer e deci di ng t he i ssue by di scover i ng, at best , uncl ear case model s on t he mor e demandi ng st andar d of r evi ew. Or , i n t he name of r at i onal basi s, 12 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 12 of 32 t hey have at t i mes appl i ed t he mor e exact i ng r evi ew st andar ds. Thi s Cour t woul d be mor e ci r cumspect . I n l i ght of st i l l - bi ndi ng pr ecedent , t hi s Cour t decl i nes t o f ashi on a new suspect cl ass. To do so woul d di st or t pr ecedent and demean t he democr at i c pr ocess. As J ust i ce Powel l st r essed and caut i oned i n Fur man v. Geor gi a i n a r obust di ssent r egar di ng st at e- adopt ed capi t al puni shment : Less measur abl e, but cer t ai nl y of no l ess si gni f i cance, i s t he shat t er i ng ef f ect t hi s col l ect i on of vi ews has on t he r oot pr i nci pl es of st ar e deci si s, f eder al i sm, j udi ci al r est r ai nt and- - most i mpor t ant l y- separ at i on of power s. . . . I n a democr acy t he f i r st i ndi cat or of t he publ i c' s at t i t ude must al ways be f ound i n t he l egi sl at i ve j udgment s of t he peopl e' s chosen r epr esent at i ves. 408 U. S. 238, 417, 436- 37 ( 1972) . Of t he r ol e of t he cour t s i n such mat t er s: Fi r st , wher e as her e, t he l anguage of t he appl i cabl e pr ovi si on pr ovi des gr eat l eeway and wher e t he under l yi ng soci al pol i ci es ar e f el t t o be of vi t al i mpor t ance, t he t empt at i on t o r ead per sonal pr ef er ence i nt o t he Const i t ut i on i s under st andabl y gr eat . . . . But i t i s not t he busi ness of t hi s Cour t t o pr onounce pol i cy. I t must obser ve a f ast i di ous r egar d f or l i mi t at i ons on i t s own power , and t hi s pr ecl udes t he Cour t gi vi ng ef f ect t o i t s own not i ons of what i s wi se or pol i t i c. I d. at 431, 433. And hi s emphat i c t r ust i n def er ence f or f r ee and open debat e i n a democr acy r esonat es: I t seems t o me t hat t he sweepi ng j udi ci al act i on under t aken t oday r ef l ect s a basi c l ack of f ai t h and conf i dence i n t he democr at i c pr ocess. I d. at 464- 65. 13 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 13 of 32 Pl ai nt i f f s al so add t hat t hey suf f er di scr i mi nat i on based on gender . Pl ai nt i f f s, as do most ot her f eder al cour t s conf r ont ed wi t h t hese i ssues, equat e t hi s case wi t h Lovi ng v. Vi r gi ni a, 388 U. S. 1, 8 ( 1967) , wher e t he Supr eme Cour t r i ght l y condemned r aci al di scr i mi nat i on even t hough Vi r gi ni a' s ant i mi scegenat i on mar r i age l aws equal l y appl i ed t o bot h r aces. Pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument bet r ays i t sel f . Hei ght ened scr ut i ny was war r ant ed i n Lovi ng because t he Four t eent h Amendment expr essl y condemns r aci al di scr i mi nat i on as a const i t ut i onal evi l ; i n shor t , t he Const i t ut i on speci f i cal l y bans di f f er ent i at i on based on r ace. See i d. ; see al so Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733, at *145 ( 10 t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ( Kel l y, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) ( " Okl ahoma' s ef f or t s t o r et ai n i t s def i ni t i on of mar r i age ar e beni gn, and ver y much unl i ke r ace- based r est r i ct i ons on mar r i age i nval i dat ed i n Lovi ng v. Vi r gi ni a. " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . Even i gnor i ng t he obvi ous di f f er ence bet ween t hi s case and Lovi ng, no anal ogy can def eat t he pl ai n r eal i t y t hat Loui si ana' s l aws appl y evenhandedl y t o bot h gender s- - whet her bet ween t wo men or t wo women. Same- sex mar r i age i s not r ecogni zed i n Loui si ana and i s r easonabl y anchor ed t o t he democr at i c pr ocess. The Cour t i s t her ef or e sat i sf i ed t hat r at i onal basi s appl i es. See al so Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *92 ( 4 t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ( Ni emeyer , J . , di ssent i ng) . 14 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 14 of 32 B. So, i s t her e even any r at i onal basi s f or Loui si ana' s r esi st ance t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages ent er ed i nt o i n ot her st at es, or t o aut hor i ze same- sex mar r i ages i n Loui si ana? Pl ai nt i f f s cont end not , and concl ude t hat Loui si ana' s l aws and Const i t ut i on can onl y be suppor t ed by a hat ef ul ani mus. Def endant s r ej oi n t hat t he l aws ser ve a cent r al st at e i nt er est of l i nki ng chi l dr en t o an i nt act f ami l y f or med by t hei r bi ol ogi cal par ent s. Of even mor e consequence, i n t hi s Cour t ' s j udgment , def endant s asser t a l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est i n saf eguar di ng t hat f undament al soci al change, i n t hi s i nst ance, i s bet t er cul t i vat ed t hr ough democr at i c consensus. Thi s Cour t agr ees. 9 9 The Cour t acknowl edges t hat i t s deci si on r uns count er t o al l but t wo ot her f eder al cour t deci si ons. See Mer r i t t v. At t or ney Gen. , No. 13- 215, 2013 WL 6044329 ( M. D. La. Nov. 14, 2013) ; Sevci k v. Sandoval , 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 ( D. Nev. 2012) . But see Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298 ( 4 t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ; Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733 ( 10 t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ; Ki t chen v. Heber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10 t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) ; Br enner v. Scot t , Nos. 14- 107 & 14- 138, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 116684 ( N. D. Fl . Aug. 21, 2014) ; Bur ns v. Hi ckenl ooper , No. 14- 1817, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 100894 ( D. Col o. J ul y 23, 2014) ; Love v. Beshear , No. 13- 750, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 89119 ( W. D. Ky. J ul y 1, 2014) ; Baski n v. Bogan, Nos. 14- 355, 14- 404 & 14- 406, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 86114 ( S. D. I nd. J une 25, 2014) ; Wol f v. Wal ker , No. 14- 64, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 77125 ( W. D. Wi s. J une 6, 2014) ; Whi t ewood v. Wol f , No. 13- 1861, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68771 ( M. D. Pa. May 20, 2014) ; Gei ger v. Ki t zhaber , Nos. 13- 1834 & 13- 2256, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68171 ( D. Or . May 19, 2014) ; Lat t a v. Ot t er , No. 13- 482, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 66417 ( D. I daho May 13, 2014) ; DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 ( E. D. Mi ch. 2014) ; Tanco v. Hasl am, No. 13- 1159, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 33463 ( M. D. Tenn. Mar ch 14, 2014) ; De Leon v. Per r y, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 ( W. D. Tex. 2014) ; Lee v. Or r , No. 13- 8719, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 21620 ( N. D. I l l . 15 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 15 of 32 Loui si ana' s l aws and Const i t ut i on ar e di r ect l y r el at ed t o achi evi ng mar r i age' s hi st or i cal l y pr eemi nent pur pose of l i nki ng chi l dr en t o t hei r bi ol ogi cal par ent s. Loui si ana' s r egi me pays r espect t o t he democr at i c pr ocess; t o vi gor ous debat e. To pr edi ct abl e cont r over sy, of cour se. The f act t hat mar r i age has many di f f er i ng, even per haps unpr oved di mensi ons, does not r ender Loui si ana' s deci si on i r r at i onal . Nor does t he opi ni on of a set of soci al sci ent i st s ( ar dent l y di sput ed by many ot her s, i t shoul d be not ed) t hat ot her associ at i ve f or ms may be equal l y st abl e, or t he vi ew t hat such j udgment s vi l i f y a gr oup ( even t hough one f i nds t hem i n a maj or i t y of t he st at es, but not i n al l st at es) . 10 Even t he f act t hat t he st at e' s pr ecept s wor k t o one gr oup' s di sadvant age does not mandat e t hat t hey ser ve no r at i onal basi s. See Romer , 517 U. S. at 632. The Cour t i s per suaded t hat a meani ng of what i s mar r i age t hat has endur ed i n hi st or y f or t housands of year s, and pr evai l s i n a maj or i t y of st at es t oday, i s not uni ver sal l y i r r at i onal on t he const i t ut i onal gr i d. See Ki mel , 528 U. S. at 84; Feb. 21, 2014) ; McGee v. Col e, No. 13- 24068, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 10864 ( S. D. W. Va. J an. 29, 2014) . But cf . Bi shop, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733, at *148 ( Kel l y, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) ( " Absent a f undament al r i ght , t r adi t i onal r at i onal basi s equal pr ot ect i on pr i nci pl es shoul d appl y, and appar ent l y as a maj or i t y of t hi s panel bel i eves, t he Pl ai nt i f f s cannot pr evai l on t hat basi s. " ) . 10 Thi s Cour t does not ent er t he di sput e of whi ch " sci ence" on t hi s i ssue i s cor r ect . The cont ent i ous debat e i n soci al sci ence l i t er at ur e about what i s " mar r i age" i n t oday' s wor l d does not dr i ve or i nf or mt he Cour t ' s deci si on. 16 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 16 of 32 Sevci k v. Sandoval , 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1014 ( D. Nev. 2012) . ( Shor t l y bef or e Wi ndsor , t he di st r i ct cour t i n Sevci k adopt ed ar gument s by Nevada t hat cl osel y mi r r or Loui si ana' s submi ssi ons) . The Cour t al so hesi t at es wi t h t he not i on t hat t hi s st at e' s choi ce coul d onl y be i nspi r ed by hat e and i nt ol er ance. Loui si ana unquest i onabl y r espect ed " a st at ewi de del i ber at i ve pr ocess t hat al l owed i t s ci t i zens t o di scuss and wei gh ar gument s f or and agai nst same- sex mar r i age. " See Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2689. Al l si des f or and agai nst gr appl ed wi t h t hi s sol emn i ssue. The Cour t decl i nes t o assi gn an i l l i ci t mot i ve on t he basi s of t hi s r ecor d, as have al so t wo f eder al appel l at e j udges as wel l . 11
Wi ndsor r epeat edl y and emphat i cal l y r eaf f i r med t he 11 I n hi s concur r ence i n t he r ecent case of Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733, *93- *133 ( 10 t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) , J udge Hol mes al so decl i ned t o agr ee t hat st at e l aws l i mi t i ng same- sex mar r i age suf f er f r om unconst i t ut i onal ani mus. J udge Hol mes, i n a ver y car ef ul opi ni on, expl ai ned t hat a f i ndi ng of ani mus gener al l y r equi r es some st r uct ur al aber r at i on i n t he l aw at i ssue, l i ke t he i mposi t i on of wi de- r angi ng and novel depr i vat i ons upon t he di sf avor ed gr oup or devi at i on f r om t he hi st or i cal t er r i t or y of t he sover ei gn si mpl y t o el i mi nat e pr i vi l eges t hat t he di sf avor ed gr oup mi ght ot her wi se enj oy. I d. at *106. J udge Hol mes of f er ed Romer as an exampl e of t he f or mer , and Wi ndsor of t he l at t er , but di st i ngui shed t he same- sex mar r i age ban cases because of t he st ar k absence of any st r uct ur al i r r egul ar i t y. I d. at *133. J udge Hol mes r easoned t hat Okl ahoma' s pr ohi bi t i on was nei t her as f ar r eachi ng as t he amendment i n Romer nor a depar t ur e f r om t r adi t i onal sover ei gn r ol es l i ke DOMA was i n Wi ndsor . I d. Thi s Cour t agr ees ent i r el y wi t h J udge Hol mes on t hi s poi nt and concl udes t he ani mus doct r i ne i s i nappl i cabl e her e. To r each a cont r ar y r esul t , i t woul d be necessar y t o " st r et ch t o accommodat e changi ng soci et al nor ms. " See Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *43 ( 4 t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) . 17 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 17 of 32 l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl e t hat t he aut hor i t y t o r egul at e t he subj ect of domest i c r el at i ons bel ongs t o t he st at es, subj ect t o i ndi st i nct f ut ur e const i t ut i onal guar ant ees t hat i n Wi ndsor wer e, by i t s expr essed l i mi t s, l ef t open and r at her i nexact . I d. at 2691, 2692, 2693, 2696. Al t hough opi ni ons about same- sex mar r i age wi l l under st andabl y var y among t he st at es, and ot her st at es i n f r ee and open debat e wi l l and have chosen di f f er ent l y, t hat does not mandat e t hat Loui si ana has over st epped i t s sover ei gn aut hor i t y. See i d. at 2692. Because t hi s Cour t concl udes t hat Loui si ana' s l aws ar e r at i onal l y r el at ed t o i t s l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est s, as def endant s pl ausi bl y f ocus, t hey do not of f end pl ai nt i f f s' r i ght s t o Equal Pr ot ect i on. 12 C. The par t i es al so seek summar y j udgment on Due Pr ocess Cl ause gr ounds. The Four t eent h Amendment pr ohi bi t s a st at e f r om depr i v[ i 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. U. S. Const . amend. XI V, 1. Thi s pr ot ect i on has been vi ewed as havi ng bot h pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve component s when st at e act i on i s chal l enged. As t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t has obser ved: 12 Thi s Cour t f i nds common cause wi t h J ust i ce Powel l ' s caut i onar y i nj unct i on i n Fur man v. Geor gi a about j udi ci al act i on t hat " r ef l ect s a basi c l ack of f ai t h and conf i dence i n t he democr at i c pr ocess. " 408 U. S. at 464- 65. 18 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 18 of 32 Pr ocedur al due pr ocess pr omot es f ai r ness i n gover nment deci si ons by r equi r i ng t he gover nment t o f ol l ow appr opr i at e pr ocedur es when i t s agent s deci de t o depr i ve any per son of l i f e, l i ber t y, or pr oper t y. Dani el s v. Wi l l i ams, 474 U. S. 327, 331 ( 1986) . Subst ant i ve due pr ocess, by bar r i ng cer t ai n gover nment act i ons r egar dl ess of t he f ai r ness of t he pr ocedur es used t o i mpl ement t hem, [ ] ser ves t o pr event gover nment power f r ombei ng used f or pur poses of oppr essi on. I d. The J ohn Cor p. v. The Ci t y of Houst on, 214 F. 3d 573, 577 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2000) ( addi t i onal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . The subst ant i ve component of due pr ocess, whi ch pl ai nt i f f s count on her e, pr ot ect s f undament al r i ght s t hat ar e so i mpl i ci t i n t he concept of or der ed l i ber t y 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. Pal ko v. Connect i cut , 302 U. S. 319, 325- 36 ( 1937) . Fundament al r i ght s pr ot ect ed by subst ant i ve due pr ocess ar e pr ot ect ed f r om cer t ai n st at e act i ons r egar dl ess of what pr ocedur es t he st at e uses. Doe v. Moor e, 410 F. 3d 1337, 1343 ( 11 t h Ci r . 2005) ( ci t i ng t he pr omi nent deci si on i n Washi ngt on v. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. 702, 721 ( 1997) ) . And such f undament al r i ght s have been hel d t o i ncl ude t he r i ght s t o mar r y, t o have chi l dr en, t o di r ect t he educat i on and upbr i ngi ng of one s chi l dr en, t o mar i t al pr i vacy, t o use cont r acept i on, t o bodi l y i nt egr i t y, and t o abor t i on. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 720 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The Supr eme Cour t has, however , 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. I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and 19 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 19 of 32 ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Ther e exi st s t hen, a cent r al not i on t hat anchor s t he doct r i ne of subst ant i ve due pr ocess: t he i ndi spensabl e pr esence of a f undament al r i ght . To est abl i sh a subst ant i ve due pr ocess vi ol at i on, t he aggr i eved per son must descr i be t he i nf r i nged r i ght wi t h par t i cul ar i t y and must est abl i sh i t as 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. Mal agon de Fuent es v. Gonzal es, 462 F. 3d 498, 505 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2006) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I f a r i ght i s so " deepl y r oot ed" as t o be f undament al at i t s cor e, a mor e exact i ng scr ut i ny i s r equi r ed; i f not , t he Cour t appl i es t he l ess demandi ng r at i onal basi s r evi ew. I d. Pl ai nt i f f s f er vent l y i nsi st t hat Loui si ana' s l aws and Const i t ut i on vi ol at e t hei r r i ght t o subst ant i ve due pr ocess by depr i vi ng t hemof t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r y. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat Loui si ana subst ant i al l y bur dens what t hey envi si on as t hei r f undament al r i ght t o mar r y and t hat st r i ct scr ut i ny i s t he st andar d of r evi ew t o gui de t hi s Cour t . Def endant s count er , however , t hat t her e i s no f undament al r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age and t hat r at i onal basi s r evi ew i s appr opr i at e. Def endant s cor r ect l y poi nt t o Washi ngt on v. Gl ucksber g, 521 U. S. at 721, whi ch mandat es t hat pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi de a " car ef ul descr i pt i on" of t he asser t ed f undament al r i ght t o succeed on a subst ant i ve due pr ocess chal l enge. The Cour t agr ees t hat Gl ucksber g r equi r es a " car ef ul 20 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 20 of 32 descr i pt i on, " whi ch, her e, means t hat pl ai nt i f f s must speci f i cal l y asser t a f undament al r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age. 13 No aut hor i t y di ct at es, and pl ai nt i f f s do not cont end, t hat same- sex mar r i age i s anchor ed t o hi st or y or t r adi t i on. 14 The concept of same- sex mar r i age i s " a new per spect i ve, a new i nsi ght , " 13 The cases i nvoked by pl ai nt i f f s, i ncl udi ng Tur ner v. Saf el y, 482 U. S. 78 ( 1987) , Zabl ocki v. Redhai l , 434 U. S. 374 ( 1978) , and Lovi ng, 388 U. S. 1, do not r el i eve t hem of t hei r obl i gat i on t o car ef ul l y descr i be t he f undament al r i ght at i ssue her e. Al t hough a pr ocessi on of f eder al cour t s accept ed si mi l ar ar gument s, t hat t r i ni t y of Supr eme Cour t cases does not suppor t t he pr oposi t i on t hat mar r i age i s a f undament al r i ght guar ant eed t o ever yone wi t hout l i mi t at i on; i ndeed, each case i nvol ved mar r i ages bet ween one man and one woman. See Zabl ocki , 434 U. S. at 386 ( " By af 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 st r i ct scr ut i ny. " ) . Def endant s apt l y not e t hat i t coul d not be mai nt ai ned t hat t he st at es vi ol at e a gener al f undament al r i ght t o mar r y when t hey r est r i ct mar r i ages bet ween mi nor s, f i r st cousi ns, or mor e t han t wo peopl e, f or exampl e. I n a case such as t hi s, t he pl ai nt i f f s necessar i l y asser t an i nt er est apar t f r omand beyond t he hi st or i c and t r adi t i onal r i ght t o mar r y. Even pl ai nt i f f s admi t t hat such uni ons woul d have unaccept abl e " si gni f i cant soci et al har ms. " 14 Def endant s poi nt t o Baker v. Nel son, 409 U. S. 810 ( 1972) , i n suppor t of t he pr oposi t i on t hat t her e i s no Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent f or a f undament al r i ght t o mar r y someone of t he same sex. I n Baker v. Nel son, t he Supr eme Cour t summar i l y r ej ect ed " f or want of a subst ant i al f eder al quest i on" t he cl ai mt hat t he Const i t ut i on r equi r es a st at e t o aut hor i ze same- sex mar r i age. Def endant s poi nt out t hat Baker was deci ded f i ve year s af t er Lovi ng. Unl i ke t he def endant s i n many of t he ot her same- sex mar r i age cases bef or e ot her f eder al cour t s, however , def endant s her e do not cont end t hat Baker f or ecl oses t hi s Cour t ' s r evi ew or mandat es t he di sposi t i on of t hi s case. See al so Mer r i t t v. At t or ney Gen. , No. 13- 215, 2013 WL 6044329, at *2 ( M. D. La. Nov. 14, 2013) ( ci t i ng Baker f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he Const i t ut i on does not r equi r e st at es t o per mi t same- sex mar r i age) . The Cour t need not ent er t he di f f er i ng cont ent i ons about t he vi abi l i t y of Baker v. Nel son. 21 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 21 of 32 nonexi st ent and even i nconcei vabl e unt i l ver y r ecent l y. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2689. Many st at es have democr at i cal l y chosen t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i age. But unt i l r ecent year s, i t had no pl ace at al l i n t hi s nat i on' s hi st or y and t r adi t i on. Publ i c at t i t ude mi ght be becomi ng mor e di ver se, but any r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age i s not yet so ent r enched as t o be f undament al . See Mal agon, 462 F. 3d at 505. Ther e i s si mpl y no f undament al r i ght , hi st or i cal l y or t r adi t i onal l y, t o same- sex mar r i age. 15
Wi t h no f undament al r i ght at st ake, 16 t he Cour t agai n r evi ews under r at i onal basi s. The Cour t has al r eady hel d t hat Loui si ana' s 15 Thi s Cour t i s not t he f i r st t o r each t hi s concl usi on, even post - Wi ndsor . See Love v. Beshear , No. 13- 750, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 89119, at *18 ( W. D. Ky. J ul y 1, 2014) ( " I f t he i nqui r y her e i s vi ewed as a cont our s- of - t he- r i ght quest i on, hol di ng t hat t he f undament al r i ght t o mar r y encompasses same- sex mar r i age woul d be a dr amat i c st ep t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has not yet i ndi cat ed a wi l l i ngness t o t ake. " ) ; see al so Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *92 ( 4 t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ( Ni emeyer , J . , di ssent i 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. " ) ; Bi shop v. Smi t h, Nos. 14- 5003 & 14- 5006, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 13733, *147- *148 ( 10 t h Ci r . J ul y 18, 2014) ( Kel l y J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) ( " Removi ng gender compl ement ar i t y f r om t he hi st or i cal def i ni t i on of mar r i age i s si mpl y cont r ar y t o t he car ef ul anal ysi s pr escr i bed by t he Supr eme Cour t when i t comes t o subst ant i ve due pr ocess. " ) . 16 Pl ai nt i f f s al so summar i l y al l ege vi ol at i ons of t hei r f undament al r i ght s t o r emai n mar r i ed and t o par ent al aut hor i t y, but t hese cl ai ms f ai l f or t he same r eason. The Cour t not es, however , t hat ot her f eder al di st r i ct cour t opi ni ons post - Wi ndsor have f avor ed same- sex mar r i ages under al l st andar ds of r evi ew. See, e. g. , Ki t chen v. Her ber t , No. 13- 217, 2013 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 179331 ( D. Ut ah Dec. 20, 2013) , af f ' d, No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10 t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) ; Wol f v. Wal ker , No. 14- 64, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 77125 ( W. D. Wi s. J une 6, 2014) ; Whi t ewood v. Wol f , 13- 1861, 2014 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68771 ( M. D. Pa. May 20, 2014) . 22 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 22 of 32 l aw and Const i t ut i on sur vi ve under a r at i onal basi s r evi ew. Al t hough pl ai nt i f f s mai nt ai n t hat t he l aws ar e i mpr oper l y gr ounded onl y i n t r adi t i on and mor al obj ect i on, def endant s of f er a cr edi bl e, and convi nci ng, r at i onal basi s t o t he cont r ar y. See Hel l er v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319- 20 ( 1993) . Al t hough pl ai nt i f f s woul d f ashi on a moder n const i t ut i onal const r uct and pl ace si de by si de t hi s case t o Lawr ence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 ( 2003) , i n whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat Texas' ant i sodomy st at ut e vi ol at ed subst ant i ve due pr ocess, t he Cour t i n Lawr ence speci f i cal l y f ound t hat t he Texas l aw f ur t her ed no l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est suf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y i t s i nt r usi on on t he r i ght t o pr i vacy. I d. at 578. Thi s Cour t i s per suaded t hat Loui si ana has a l egi t i mat e i nt er est . . . whet her obsol et e i n t he opi ni on of some, or not , i n t he opi ni on of ot her s. . . i n l i nki ng chi l dr en t o an i nt act f ami l y f or med by t hei r t wo bi ol ogi cal par ent s, as speci f i cal l y under scor ed by J ust i ce Kennedy i n Wi ndsor . And t he Cour t i s not per suaded t hat Lawr ence, a r i ght t o pr i vacy model , pr ovi des any suppor t f or a subst ant i ve due pr ocess l i ber t y t o same- sex mar r i age. The Cour t f i nds i t hel pf ul t o cal l at t ent i on t hat Lawr ence, by i t s own t er ms, di d " not i nvol ve whet her t he gover nment must gi ve f or mal r ecogni t i on t o any r el at i onshi p t hat homosexual per sons seek t o ent er . " I d. ; see al so i d. at 585 ( O' Connor , J . , concur r i ng) ( " Texas cannot asser t any l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est her e, such as nat i onal secur i t y or pr eser vi ng t he 23 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 23 of 32 t r adi t i onal i nst i t ut i on of mar r i age. Unl i ke t he mor al di sappr oval of same- sex r el at i ons- t he asser t ed i nt er est i n t hi s case- ot her r easons exi st t o pr omot e t he i nst i t ut i on of mar r i age beyond mer e mor al di sappr oval of an excl uded gr oup. " ( emphasi s added) ) . D. Bot h si des al so seek summar y j udgment on pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m t hat Loui si ana Depar t ment of Revenue I nf or mat i on Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 vi ol at es t hei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght s. The Fi r st Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on decl ar es t hat " Congr ess shal l make no l aw. . . abr i dgi ng t he f r eedomof speech. " U. S. Const . amend. I . " As a gener al mat t er , t he Fi r st Amendment means t hat gover nment has no power t o r est r i ct expr essi on because of i t s message, i t s i deas, i t s subj ect mat t er , or i t s cont ent . " Uni t ed St at es v. St evens, 559 U. S. 460, 468 ( 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . And t he Fi r st Amendment al so means t hat t he gover nment cannot compel a per son t o speak or t o par r ot a f avor ed vi ewpoi nt . Wool ey v. Maynar d, 430 U. S. 705, 714 ( 1977) ( " We begi n wi t h t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he r i ght of f r eedomof t hought pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r st Amendment agai nst st at e act i on i ncl udes bot h t he r i ght t o speak f r eel y and t he r i ght t o r ef r ai n f r omspeaki ng at al l . " ) ; W. Va. St at e Bd. of Educ. v. Bar net t e, 319 U. S. 624, 642 ( 1943) ( " I f t her e i s any f i xed st ar i n our const i t ut i onal const el l at i on, i t i s t hat no of f i ci al , hi gh or pet t y, can pr escr i be what shal l be or t hodox i n pol i t i cs, nat i onal i sm, r el i gi on or ot her mat t er s of 24 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 24 of 32 opi ni on or f or ce ci t i zens t o conf ess by wor d or act t hei r f ai t h t her ei n. " ) . I n t he cont ext of compel l ed speech, cour t s must di scer n whet her a l aw " r egul at es conduct , not speech" ; onl y i nf r i ngement s of speech, and not conduct , war r ant Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect i on. Rumsf el d v. For um f or Academi c & I nst . Ri ght s, 547 U. S. 47, 60 ( 2006) ( di st i ngui shi ng r egul at i on of what someone " must do" f r om" what t hey may or may not say" ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) . Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 r equi r es same- sex coupl es who ar e l awf ul l y mar r i ed i n ot her st at es t o never t hel ess descr i be t hat t hey ar e of si ngl e st at us on t hei r Loui si ana st at e i ncome t ax r et ur ns. Pl ai nt i f f s say t hat compel s speech. Def endant s answer t hat t he t ar get ed bul l et i n mer el y pr escr i bes conduct . They add t hat t he r equi r ed conduct i s necessar y t o an essent i al gover nment f unct i on, col l ect i ng st at e t axes. They st r ess hel pf ul l y t hat t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t r ecent l y agr eed wi t h t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t t hat t he r equi r ed di scl osur e of i nf or mat i on on a t ax f or m i s si mpl y not compel l ed speech under t he Fi r st Amendment . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ar nol d, 740 F. 3d 1032, 1035 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2014) ( " ' Ther e i s no r i ght t o r ef r ai n f r om speaki ng when essent i al oper at i ons of gover nment r equi r e i t f or t he pr eser vat i on of an or der l y soci et y. . . . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Si ndel , 53 F. 3d 874, 878 ( 8 t h Ci r . 1995) ) . The Cour t i s sat i sf i ed t hat Bul l et i n No. 13- 024 does not cont r avene t he Fi r st Amendment ; t hat t he di scl osur e r equi r ement r egul at es conduct , not speech. See Rumsf el d, 547 U. S. at 60; Ar nol d, 740 F. 3d at 1034- 35. Despi t e pl ai nt i f f s' cont ent i ons t o 25 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 25 of 32 t he cont r ar y, t he bul l et i n has not hi ng t o do wi t h f or ci ng pl ai nt i f f s t o di scl ai mt hei r " deep spi r i t ual and emot i onal bel i ef i n t he i nvi ol abi l i t y of t hei r mar r i ages, " but , r at her , i t si mpl y r equi r es pl ai nt i f f s t o pr ovi de t he gover nment wi t h i nf or mat i on necessar y f or t he pur pose of st at e t ax col l ect i on. See Si ndel , 53 F. 3d at 878. Taki ng pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument t o i t s l ogi cal concl usi on, any st at e pol i cy wi t h whi ch one di sagr ees coul d const i t ut e compel l ed speech. The Cour t decl i nes t o endor se t hat shapel ess r esul t . I I I . Thi s Cour t has ar duousl y st udi ed t he vol l ey of nat i onal l y or chest r at ed cour t r ul i ngs agai nst st at es whose vot er s chose i n f r ee and open el ect i ons, whose l egi sl at ur es, af t er a r obust , even f r act i ous debat e and exchange of compet i ng, vi gor ousl y di f f er i ng vi ews, l i st ened t o t hei r ci t i zens r egar di ng t he har shl y di vi si ve and passi onat e i ssue on same- sex mar r i age. The f eder al cour t deci si ons t hus f ar exempl i f y a pageant of empat hy; deci si ons i mpel l ed by a r esponse of i nnat e pat hos. Cour t s t hat , i n t he wor ds of J ust i ce Scal i a i n a di f f er ent cont ext i n Bond v. Uni t ed St at es, 134 S. Ct . 2077, 2094 ( 2014) ( concur r i ng opi ni on) , appear t o have assumed t he mant l e of a l egi sl at i ve body. I n f act J udge Ni emeyer i n hi s " l i ngui st i c mani pul at i on" di ssent i n Bost i c v. Schaef er put s i t even mor e candi dl y: 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 26 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 26 of 32 di st i nct f r omt he newl y pur posed 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. " 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. Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *71- *72 ( 4 t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . 17 I t woul d no doubt be cel ebr at ed t o be i n t he company of t he near - unani mi t y of t he many ot her f eder al cour t s t hat have spoken t o t hi s pr essi ng i ssue, i f t hi s Cour t wer e conf i dent i n t he bel i ef t hat t hose cases pr ovi de a cor r ect gui de. Cl ear l y, many ot her cour t s wi l l have an oppor t uni t y t o t ake up t he i ssue of same- sex mar r i age; cour t s of appeal s and, at some poi nt , t he U. S. Supr eme Cour t . The deci si on of t hi s Cour t i s but one st udi ed deci si on among many. Our Fi f t h Ci r cui t has not yet spoken. The dept h of passi on i nher ent i n t he i ssues bef or e t hi s Cour t def i es def i ni t i on. That f eder al cour t s 18 t hus f ar have j oi ned i n 17 One case, pr e- Wi ndsor but r at her cl ose i n t i me, Sevci k v. Sandoval , 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 ( D. Nev. 2012) , f r omNevada, st ands apar t f r omt he deci si ons descr i pt i vel y spawned by Wi ndsor and t he cont est s t hat f ol l owed t hr oughout t he nat i on. Pl ai nt i f f s say l i t t l e, i f anyt hi ng, about Sevci k. See al so Mer r i t t v. At t or ney Gen. , No. 13- 215, 2013 WL 6044329 ( M. D. La. Nov. 14, 2013) . 18 The Tent h Ci r cui t , i n a spl i t deci si on, has r ecent l y spoken. Ki t chen v. Her ber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10 t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) . As has t he Four t h Ci r cui t . Bost i c v. Schaef er , Nos. 14- 1167, 14- 1169 & 14- 1173, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298 ( 4 t h Ci r . J ul y 28, 2014) . 27 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 27 of 32 t he hopef ul chor us t hat t he t i de i s t ur ni ng seems ar dent and i s an ar guabl y popul ar , i ndeed, poi gnant , out come ( whet her or not cr edi bl y const i t ut i onal l y dr i ven) . Per haps, i n t he wake of t oday' s bl ur r y not i on of evol vi ng under st andi ng, t he r esul t i s or dai ned. Per haps i n a new est abl i shed poi nt of vi ew, mar r i age wi l l be r educed t o cont r act l aw, and, by cont r act , anyone wi l l be abl e t o cl ai mmar r i age. Per haps t hat i s t he next f r ont i er , t he next phase of some " evol vi ng under st andi ng of equal i t y, " wher e what i s mar r i age wi l l be expl or ed. And as pl ai nt i f f s vi gor ousl y r emi nd, t her e have been embat t l ed t i mes when t he f eder al j udi ci ar y pr oper l y i nser t ed i t sel f t o cor r ect a wr ong i n our soci et y. But t hat i s an i ncompl et e answer t o t oday' s soci al i ssue. When a f eder al cour t i s obl i ged t o conf r ont a const i t ut i onal st r uggl e over what i s mar r i age, a si ngul ar l y pi vot al i ssue, t he consequence of out comes, i nt ended or ot her wi se, seems an equal l y compel l i ng par t of t he equat i on. I t seems unj ust t o i gnor e. And so, i nconveni ent quest i ons per si st . For exampl e, must t he st at es per mi t or r ecogni ze a mar r i age bet ween an aunt and ni ece? Aunt and nephew? Br ot her / br ot her ? Fat her and chi l d? May mi nor s mar r y? Must mar r i age be l i mi t ed t o onl y t wo peopl e? What about a t r ansgender spouse? I s such a uni on same- gender or mal e- f emal e? Al l such uni ons woul d undeni abl y be equal l y commi t t ed t o l ove and car i ng f or one anot her , j ust l i ke t he pl ai nt i f f s. 19
19 I n t he wor ds of t he Four t h Ci r cui t : " 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 28 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 28 of 32 Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel was unabl e t o answer such ki nds of quest i ons; t he onl y hesi t ant r esponse gi ven was t hat such uni ons woul d r esul t i n " si gni f i cant soci et al har ms" t hat t he st at es coul d i ndeed r egul at e. But not same- gender uni ons. Thi s Cour t i s power l ess t o be i ndi f f er ent t o t he unknown and possi bl y i mpr udent consequences of such a deci si on. A deci si on f or whi ch t her e r emai ns t he ar ena of democr at i c debat e. Fr ee and open and pr obi ng debat e. I ndeed, f r act i ous debat e. The Cour t r emai ns dr awn t o t he f or cef ul and pr ophet i c ci r cumspect i on expr essed by J ust i ce Powel l , and t ur ns t he spot l i ght agai n not onl y on hi s di ssent i n Fur man v. Geor gi a, 408 U. S. 238, 414 ( 1972) , but al so t o J udge Kel l y i n hi s di ssent i n t he r ecent Tent h Ci r cui t deci si on i n Ki t chen v. Her ber t , No. 13- 4178, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935 ( 10 t h Ci r . J une 25, 2014) . Thei r wor ds l ead t hi s Cour t t oday and ought not be sl i ght ed: [ W] her e, as her e, t he l anguage of t he appl i cabl e pr ovi si on pr ovi des gr eat l eeway and wher e t he under l yi ng soci al pol i ci es ar e f el t t o be of vi t al i mpor t ance, t he t empt at i on t o r ead per sonal pr ef er ence i nt o t he Const i t ut i on i s under st andabl y gr eat . . . . But i t i s not t he busi ness of t hi s Cour t t o pr onounce pol i cy. I t must obser ve a f ast i di ous r egar d f or l i mi t at i ons on i t s own power , and t hi s pr ecl udes t he Cour t ' s gi vi ng ef f ect t o i t s own not i ons of what i s wi se or pol i t i c. Fur man, 408 U. S. at 431, 433. 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. " Bost i c, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *67. But see i d. at *86- *87 ( Ni emeyer , J . , di ssent i ng) ( " 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. " ) . 29 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 29 of 32 [ O] n t hi s i ssue we shoul d def er . To be sur e, t he const ant r ef r ai n i n t hese cases has been t hat t he St at es' j ust i f i cat i ons ar e not advanced by excl udi ng same- gender coupl es f r ommar r i age. But t hat i s a mat t er of opi ni on; any " i mpr ovement " on t he cl assi f i cat i on shoul d be l ef t t o t he st at e pol i t i cal pr ocess. Ki t chen, 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 11935, at *146. And, of we j udges as phi l osopher - ki ngs: Though t he Pl ai nt i f f s woul d wei gh t he i nt er est s of t he St at e di f f er ent l y and di scount t he pr ocr eat i on, chi l d- r ear i ng, and caut i on r at i onal es, t hat pr er ogat i ve bel ongs t o t he el ect or at e and t hei r r epr esent at i ves. . . . We shoul d r esi st t he t empt at i on t o become phi l osopher - ki ngs, i mposi ng our vi ews under t he gui se of const i t ut i onal i nt er pr et at i on of t he Four t eent h Amendment . I d. at *149- *150. Heedi ng t hose caut i ons, i t i s not f or t hi s Cour t t o r esol ve t he wi sdomof same- sex mar r i age. 20 The nat i on i s wi t ness 20 Wi ndsor of f er s no obst acl e t o t hi s poi nt , whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t even mor e r ecent l y r eaf f i r med 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) . I n Schuet t e, t he Cour t hel d t hat a Mi chi gan const i t ut i onal amendment pr event i ng t he use of r ace- based pr ef er ences as par t of t he admi ssi ons pr ocess f or st at e uni ver si t i es di d not vi ol at e t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment . J ust i ce Kennedy, t he aut hor of Wi ndsor , wr i t i ng f or t he Cour t , emphasi zed t hat t he quest i on bef or e t he Cour t was " not t he per mi ssi bi l i t y of r ace- consci ous admi ssi ons pol i ci es under t he Const i t ut i on but whet her , and i n what manner , vot er s i n t he St at es may choose t o pr ohi bi t consi der at i on of r aci al pr ef er ences i n gover nment al deci si ons. " I d. at 1630. I n ot her wor ds, t he quest i on was whet her " t he cour t s [ may or ] may not di sempower t he vot er s f r omchoosi ng whi ch pat h t o f ol l ow. " I d. at 1635. The Supr eme Cour t hel d not . I t r easoned: " Thi s case i s not about how t he debat e about r aci al pr ef er ences shoul d be r esol ved. I t i s about who may r esol ve i t . Ther e i s no aut hor i t y i n t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St at es or i n t hi s Cour t ' s pr ecedent s f or t he J udi ci ar y t o set asi de Mi chi gan l aws t hat commi t t hi s pol i cy det er mi nat i on t o t he vot er s. " I d. at 1638. Thi s case shar es st r i ki ng si mi l ar i t i es wi t h Schuet t e. J ust as i n Schuet t e, t hi s case i nvol ves " [ d] el i ber at i ve debat e on sensi t i ve i ssues [ t hat ] al l t oo of t en may shade i nt o r ancor . " I d. And so j ust l i ke t he Supr eme Cour t ver y r ecent l y hel d, t hi s Cour t agr ees " t hat does not j ust i f y r emovi ng cer t ai n cour t - det er mi ned i ssues f r om t he vot er s' r each. 30 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 30 of 32 t o a st r ong conver sat i on about what i s mar r i age. The cent r al quest i on t hat must f i r st be asked, i s what i s t he f ai r est f or umf or t he answer ? A new r i ght may or may not be af f i r med by t he democr at i c pr ocess. " Per haps someday same- gender mar r i age wi l l become par t of t hi s count r y' s hi st or y and t r adi t i on, but t hat i s not a choi ce t hi s cour t shoul d make. " I d. at *133. As J udge Ni emeyer bl unt l y wr ot e i n hi s i nsi ght f ul di ssent i n Bost i c: 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, 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. 2014 U. S. App. LEXI S 14298, at *109. Feder al i smi s not ext i nct . Feder al i sm r emai ns a vi br ant and essent i al component of our nat i on' s const i t ut i onal st r uct ur e. See Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . at 2697 ( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) ( " [ B] ut a St at e' s def i ni t i on of mar r i age i s t he f oundat i on of t he St at e' s br oader aut hor i t y t o r egul at e t he subj ect of domest i c r el at i ons wi t h r espect t o t he pr ot ect i on of of f spr i ng, pr oper t y i nt er est s, and t he enf or cement of mar i t al r esponsi bi l i t i es. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) . For al l of t hese r easons, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Loui si ana' s Democr acy does not pr esume t hat some subj ect s ar e ei t her t oo di vi si ve or t oo pr of ound f or publ i c debat e. " I d. 31 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 31 of 32 def i ni t i on of mar r i age as bet ween one man and one woman and t he l i mi t at i on on r ecogni t i on of same- sex mar r i ages per mi t t ed by l aw i n ot her st at es f ound i n Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 15 of t he Loui si ana Const i t ut i on and ar t i cl e 3520( B) of t he Loui si ana Ci vi l Code do not i nf r i nge t he guar ant ees of t he Equal Pr ot ect i on and Due Pr ocess Cl auses of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. The r ecor d r eveal s no mat er i al di sput e: t he def endant s have shown t hat Loui si ana' s deci si on t o nei t her per mi t nor r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i age, f or med i n t he ar ena of t he democr at i c pr ocess, i s suppor t ed by a r at i onal basi s. 21 The Cour t f ur t her f i nds t hat pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a genui ne di sput e r egar di ng a Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i on on t hi s r ecor d. Accor di ngl y, pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment i s DENI ED and def endant s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment i s GRANTED. New Or l eans, Loui si ana, Sept ember 3, 2014. ______________________________ MARTI N L. C. FELDMAN UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE 21 The publ i c cont r adi ct i ons and heat ed di sput es among t he communi t y of soci al sci ent i st s, cl er gy, pol i t i ci ans, and t hi nker s about what i s mar r i age conf i r ms and cl ear l y sends t he message t hat t he st at e has a l egi t i mat e i nt er est , a r at i onal basi s, i n addr essi ng t he meani ng of mar r i age. 32 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 32 of 32