2:14-cv-02518 #53

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 1 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KAIL MARIE, et al,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT D. MOSER, M.D., et al.,
)
Defendants. )
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 14-cv-02518-DDC/TJJ
RENEWED MOTION TO INTERVENE OF

WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.;
MOTION FOR HEARING; AND,
BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) and (b), Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. (WBC)
hereby renews its motion for leave to intervene as a defendant in this action and to file the
attached Answer to the First Amended Complaint filed November 26, 2014 (Doc. 52)
(Attachment A). WBC requests a hearing on this motion pursuant to D.Kan.Rule 7.2. As
her brief in support hereof, WBC states:
1. WBC, an independent Bible-believing church located in Topeka, Kansas (since 1955),
which has had a highly conspicuous public testimony against the proud ruinous sins of
this generation, including same-sex marriage, incorporates her original Motion to
Intervene and supporting brief, filed herein on October 26, 2014 (Doc. 19), in full, as
though set out here verbatim. As soon as this Court overthrew the law of God, the laws
and constitution of Kansas and the will of her citizens to not endorse same-sex marriage,
it was inevitable that the floodgate would open, and the claims would expand in this
case. We are now facing a totally different lawsuit; and the potential for the rights
asserted to lap over onto the churches of Kansas, including WBC, with a claim that
same-sex couples have the right to get the official sanction of the religious pillar of
society (to be totally fulfilled in their desire to be treated with dignity), is not only likely,
but inevitable. The new posture of this case demands that WBCs motion to intervene
be revisited and granted.
With the Filing of the First Amended Complaint, We Have a Whole New Ballgame, With
a Broad Continuum of Issues, a Perfect Framework for WBCs Intervention
2. In their First Amended Complaint filed November 26, 2014 (Doc. 52), plaintiffs have
dramatically altered the scope of their claims, seeking substantial relief above and
beyond access to a marriage license. The added claims include the right to a drivers
license with a changed name; the right to file joint (instead of individual) tax returns;
the right to be added as a claimant covered by health benefits; and the right to
recognition of marriages out of state (even though in their reply brief filed October 27,
2014 [Doc. 20], plaintiffs derided the States response to plaintiffs request for
preliminary injunctive relief, declaring in a bold subheading, Plaintiffs suit seeks the
right to marry, not recognition, reply brief p. 3).
3. In broadening the scope of the relief they demand, plaintiffs have swept in more state
officials to sue. They found a few government officials who appear to have a modicum
of remaining fear of God, and interest in fulfilling governments duty to protect the
health and welfare of the citizens; and they are determined to have the judiciary
eradicate any such thinking from the state government landscape. This is just the
2
beginning. As this litigation goes forward, any official at any level who hints at the
slightest hesitation in giving plaintiffs (and the population they represent) every single
thing they want in their quest for having their sinful behavior treated as dignified,
respectable and socially acceptable will be added to the suit. Plaintiffs will not rest
until local and state government is largely occupied with meeting their demands and
satisfying their needs.
Expect your governments to become inefficient and
preoccupied; this scorched-earth approach will tie up the courts in litigation and gum
up the works of Kansas state government indefinitely, without regard to financial
impact; and they still wont be satisfied. That is the nature of this sin, and its impact
on society.
4. Setting aside the fact that there is no legal basis for suggesting that access to drivers
licenses, access to health benefits, or the unfettered right to file joint instead of
individual tax returns, are any fundamental rights, this filing reflects the point WBC
earlier made, to wit, those who pursue the same-sex marriage agenda will never be
satisfied. This First Amended Complaint will be one of many. Settle in for this
litigation to last a decade or better. Every time one right is established for those the
plaintiffs represent, they will demand three more things; and then when those three are
gained; theyll demand nine more things; and so on and so forth, exponentially. It is
the nature of this sin.
5. Saying further, the celebratory suppers same-sex marriage advocates are holding as
federal judges force state and local officials to sanctify, enable, and endorse this sin
sharply contrast to the marriage supper of the Lamb. Let us be glad and rejoice, and
3
give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made
herself ready. *** And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto
the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of
God, Revelation 19:7,9; see also Luke 14:15-17. This great mystery concerning Christ
and His bride that is bound up in the human act of a proper marriage between one man,
one woman, for life, is wrapped up in what God requires of mankind, and in the end of
all things. These plaintiffs are inviting nay forcing the judiciary and government
officials to play with fire, tampering with Gods patterns, boldly defying plain
Scripture, all in the clear light of WBCs faithful warnings and entreaties, and thereby
imperiling every citizen of the land. Every human, especially the leaders, is duty bound
to warn against and resist this folly. If no one else will do that, WBC will do it, and she
is obligated and entitled to do so in this case, where this great wrong is taking place. If
no one else is interested in fulfilling his/her Bible duty to warn his/her fellow man
against the consequence of sin; and if no one else is interested in protecting his/her
religious right to thus object, WBC members are, and should permitted to do so.
With Their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Have Put the C in Clutter and
Confusion
6. In its order denying WBCs motion to intervene of November 7, 2014 (Doc. 35), this
Court said, at p. 4: At this point, there is no evidence that Kansas officials would
require WBC to participate in same-sex marriages or otherwise require WBC to tolerate
same-sex marriages in their ministry. Permitting WBC to intervene to litigate a nonexistent controversy only would clutter and confuse the issues needlessly. With due
4
respect, the issues will never end in this case; clutter will soon be the order of the hour;
and this record will be confused by so many same-sex activists and demands that it will
take an Excel spreadsheet to keep them all straight. It took the short period of less than
one month to switch from were not seeking recognition, to we are seeking
recognition. It is a short hop and a skip for these plaintiffs, and the population of
activists they represent, to demand that the government by force of law require churches
to marry them, and the first church they will target is WBC. It is far from remote to
anticipate this happening; and it is highly reasonable for WBC to seek protection from
the same, on the ground, where this evolution of exotic and creative rights is
occurring. The Court previously held in denying permissive intervention that WBCs
involvement would not provide any compensating benefit to the Court or the parties,
order of November 7, 2014 (Doc. 25), p. 7. Given the reshaping of this case, and the
Kansas Attorney Generals apparently waning interest in these new issues/defendants;
and the clutter and confusion that will now likely occur in this case because of the
growing number of claims and issues; we respectfully submit that WBCs experienced
input, through qualified counsel,1 will assist the Court, not detract from the issues in
this case.
Counsel respectfully submit they have experience with constitutional issues, and in
particular with protecting religious practices of dissenting religious voices, unique among
lawyers, including over 25 years of presenting claims in state and federal court, and at the
trial court and appellate level in federal court in Kansas and Nebraska, before the Tenth,
Eight and Fourth Circuits, and at the United States Supreme Court level (where counsel
prevailed in protecting WBCs interests in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ---, 131 S.Ct. 1207,
179 L.Ed.2d 172 [2011]). Input from counsel for WBC will assist the Court in addressing
the unique constitutional issues that will be raised through the course of this case.
5
7. WBC respectfully submits to this Court, and to all Kansans, that as you go down this
trail of giving the seal of government to a same-sex union, you must recognize that
those who practice this sin, and those who want this sin legitimized and treated as a
non-sin, will not rest until every citizen of the world is forced by the armed
representatives of every government to bow down and call this unholy behavior holy.
That will be the end result of this litigation; and WBC is in a position, having grappled
with this population on these moral issues on the streets and in the airwaves of this
nation for over 25 years, to recognize this; and is entitled to seek protection from this
unscriptural behavior being imposed on her members, contrary to their sincerely held
religious beliefs.
8. It is important to remember again that the goal of this litigation is not per se the marriage
license in hand. Any more than it is per se the health benefits (readily available to all
Americans without special protection, according to the Affordable Care Act); or the
drivers license (its plenty easy to go get a legal name change if you are yearning for a
different name on your drivers license); or the shared tax filings (not of enough
consequence to matter); or the myriad demands you may anticipate will be made going
forward. The goal of this litigation is to have the sin of homosexuality treated as
something respectable and morally good. And worse, to force everyone to agree with
that conclusion, or face the arm of government against them.
9. Let us be more specific. Plaintiffs are unashamed in their First Amended Complaint
(watch for a Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh ): They complain of being
treated like second-class citizens who are undeserving of respect (para. 2); they
6
demand that their committed relationships be recognized (para. 4); they complain
that Kansas laws and the Kansas constitution interfere with them having dignity
(para. 49); they demand the right to solemnize their relationships through statesanctioned ceremonies and officiants, (para 55); they demand social recognition
(para. 56); they complain that the government should not be a powerful teacher of
discrimination to others by denying them the imprimatur of the government and
thereby communicating that they are unfit for the dignity, respect and stature they
seek (para. 57). And they object to any moral disapproval being attached to their
behavior (para. 61).
10. It is a mistake, legally and factually, to fail to recognize what underpins this litigation,
and all similar litigation; and to thereby leave religious objectors exposed. The goal of
this litigation is to mow through these state officials (and anyone else they perceive to
be in their way), regardless of the laws of Kansas, or the Kansas constitution, and
without regard to the fact that human government is and should be subject to the laws
of God, e.g., For the kingdom is the LORDS: and he is the governor among the nations,
Psalm 22:28; The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God,
Psalm 9:17; Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people, Prov.
14:34; Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory,
and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the
kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all, 1 Chronicles 29:11; And he
(the Lord Jesus Christ) said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which
be Caesars, and unto God the things which be Gods, Luke 20:25. The things which
7
be Gods are these vital moral matters, and it is absolutely contrary to any human
governments duty to change Gods standard on such a vital matter.
Plaintiffs
insistence that every government official (including those who have proper and
righteous instincts) be forced to yield to their endless demands, is contrary to the laws
of both God and man. Indeed, in oral arguments before this Court on October 31, 2014,
counsel for the plaintiffs, quoting from Walt Whitmans Song of the Open Road,
acknowledged as much, quoting, I give you myself before preaching or law
(transcript 10/31/14, p. 9; emphasis added). Plaintiffs seek to uproot long-established
soul-satisfying bread-of-life principles of Gods law and mans law in this horrific
unholy quest, as they complain of intangible harms as the centerpiece of their
argument (transcript, 10/31/14, p. 10).
11. The substantial change in the scope of the claims in this matter causes WBC to renew
its motion to intervene, and is sufficient cause for the Court to consider the request
again through new eyes. E.g., Meek v. Metropolitan Dade County, 985 F.2d 1471, 1477
(11th Cir. 1993); Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Engrs, 382 F.Supp.2d 1301,
1305 (N.D.Ala. 2005).
The First Amended Complaint adds new plaintiffs and new
defendants. In this environment, with new parties being added by the carload, it is
untenable to suggest that WBC being added through intervention is prejudicial to any
party herein. WBCs proposed intervention is very consistent with the plaintiffs
approach, which is to throw into the pot all the issues remotely related to same-sex
marriage.
12. Given how broad this case has become and predictably will become there is no harm
in allowing WBC to be included as a defendant. It is important to note that no party
has objected to WBC intervening.
The scope of this litigation has changed
considerably; and is likely to change again. It is the opposite of remote and indeed
highly likely that before this case is done, plaintiffs (in whatever number they end up
being) will include claims that the government should require all churches to marry
them upon demand. WBC is entitled to assert its interests to be protected from being
forced to participate in this soul-crushing nation-destroying state-bankrupting sin.
The Tenth Circuit Requires the Court to Protect WBCs Religious Interests
13. It is not far-fetched or speculative to expect that soon same-sex marriage advocates will
press for laws forcing churches to marry them.2 The Tenth Circuit promised that
religious objectors would be free from this:
E.g., from Online: https://twitter.com/sallyeastman1 (last visited November 28, 2014):
Sally Eastman @sallyeastman1 Nov 13

#gaymarriageinsc Is a church and a wedding ceremony a public accommodation so they cannot
discriminate? Here come all the lawsuits!
#gaymarriageinsc If you're a Christian caterer who thinks being gay is a sin you have a choice.
Serve the #LGBT customers or quit your biz.
#gaymarriageinsc Hold it! Wait for the lawsuits against churches! Want to be married in a
specific church! Sue if the pastor says No
11/13/14, 9:01 AM
We also emphasize, as did the district court, that todays

decision relates solely to civil marriage. [R]eligious
institutions remain as free as they always have been to
practice their sacraments and traditions as they see fit.
[W]e continue to recognize the right of the various
religions to define marriage according to their moral,
historical, and ethical precepts. Our opinion does not
intrude into that domain or the exercise of religious
principles in this arena. The right of an officiant to
perform or decline to perform a religious ceremony is
unaffected by todays ruling.
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1227 (10th Cir. 2014). The Court made this
promise directly in connection with a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage; and
in the context of the very case where same-sex marriage was sought. And they
did not say effected parties had to wait until it was on their doorstep before they
could seek relief; or that they had to go pursue separate litigation to do so. And
in fact they said it to answer the concern that religious conflict and strife would
@hboulware @BruceNV I will wait until an #LGBT couple sues to be married in Westboro
Baptist Church #wbc just to make point #gaymarriageinsc
And from Online: http://bit.ly/1yDcX24 (lasted visited November 28, 2014):

Well Rhoda"I hope Equality House plans on throwing nice, big outdoor weddings on their front lawn"
I'm sure the resident "minister" across the street would be glad to conduct the marriage ceremony
for them!
Opinionated Pinhead 11/13/14 1:23 PM
YES!
Go SUE him if he doesn't!
sonofbettysventilator 11/13/14 1:32 PM
These are from comments in response to a story in the Topeka Capital Journal of
November 13, 2014, about a woman who was the first person to apply for a same-sex
marriage license in Shawnee County, referring to the so-called Equality House (painted in
rainbow colors of the homosexual flag) across the street from WBC, available Online:
http://bit.ly/1yDcQ6I (last visited November 28, 2014).
10
flow from a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Naturally it will flow, because
the courts are forcing an unscriptural notion on the people. WBC is entitled to
relief from this threat; and this is the time and place where the relief should be
available again, especially given how broad this case has become (and will
become).
14. This Court said in its November 7, 2014 (Doc. 35) order denying WBCs initial motion
to intervene: Should Kansas actually enforce or credibly threaten to enforce a
requirement that WBC conduct and accept same-sex marriages, WBC is free to file a
separate lawsuit seeking to protect its right to religious expression, order at p. 4. First,
as noted in para. 13 above, the Tenth Circuit did not impose such a requirement before
speaking to the protection of religious objectors. Second, this would be an inefficient
way to address this issue, particularly given that the plaintiffs have taken a throw-everyissue-on-the-table approach to this lawsuit. Third, it is not Kansas that WBC believes
will try to impose same-sex marriage on the churches (including WBC). It is these
plaintiffs that are most likely to do it, and they are most likely to do it through litigation
in federal court. So it makes no sense, and it terribly inefficient and illogical, to
artificially separate this issue from the rest of this what-will-soon-be-massive litigation
related to same-sex marriage. Rule 1, F.R.Civ.P., says that all of the federal rules of
civil procedure should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. It is not just, speedy or
inexpensive to suggest that WBC should have to file a separate lawsuit down the road
(after various and sundry rights of same-sex marriage advocates have been set in
11
motion) to address an issue which the Tenth Circuit put front-and-center in direct
connection with requests for same-sex marriage lawsuits.
15. Calling it a closer call, (Nov. 7, 2014 order, Doc. 35, p. 4), this Court previously
noted WBCs public advocacy against homosexuality, and that generally public interest
groups are entitled as a matter of right to intervene in an action challenging the legality
of a measure it has supported (but then the Court seemed to read that narrowly to require
some specific proposition or measure for this rule to apply). The reasoning of this rule
of law directly applies here. WBC has been high profile and vocal in opposing the
movement of same-sex marriage advocates. They have objected on religious grounds;
and plaintiffs now urge this Court to overlook religious objection and force state and
local governments to issue marriage licenses. That is one small heartbeat away from
asking this Court to similarly overlook religious objections by churches, and order them
to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. Wisdom suggests WBC should be permitted
to hit that effort head on, proactively, and ensure that this case with its potential to
become runaway doesnt plow right through the churches and their members
religious rights.
The Kansas Attorney General is Less and Less Able to Protect WBCs Interests,
Especially With the Ground Shifting Beneath Him
16. WBC continues to assert that her interests cannot and will not be protected by the
Kansas Attorney General. The political pressure is too great. The impact on politicians
and the pressure to back away from seeming too hard line or extreme is precisely
what plaintiffs are counting on. WBCs grace-and-faith-driven determination to not
12
compromise on the standard of God is naturally and organically an uncomfortable fit,

by definition, for an elected official in modern society. A recent story in the Topeka
Capital Journal emphasized that Kansas Attorney Gen. Derek Schmidt says his
vigorous defense of Kansas ban on same-sex marriage is designed to lead to a final
U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and found the Attorney General seeming to distance
himself from the new defendants named in this case, saying The attorney generals
office declined comment on the new filing [of the First Amended Complaint], saying it
doesnt currently represent the new defendants in the lawsuit, Online:
http://bit.ly/1FCCgpt (last visited November 28, 2014; emphasis added). Too often in
these federal cases regarding same-sex marriage bans, rather than vigorously defend
existing law, the choice of the people, and the laws of God, officials find it tempting to
say, in so many words, we just want guidance or a final decision from the United States
Supreme Court.
17. If the Kansas Attorney General does not represent the newly-added state actors, then
who does? Will it be various in-house lawyers for the new state agencies that have now
been drawn into this litigation? If so, will that mean several new defense counsel each
with their own interests acting on behalf of their own unique agency functions and
obligations? If not in-house agency lawyers, will it be private outside counsel hired by
the state to defend the new state official-defendants? And if thats the case, wont we
still have different lawyers representing the diverse interests of the new defendants? In
the very asking of these questions, it is manifest that the landscape has changed on this
front as well, so that the Courts prior reasoning that the Kansas Attorney General will
13
adequately represent the interests of WBC is no longer applicable, and warrants

revisiting. Indeed a lynchpin of the Courts November 7, 2014 (Doc. 35) order denying
intervention, was that the Kansas Attorney Generals Office represents both the Clerk
defendants and Secretary Moser, (order, p. 2). The Courts order found support in
reasoning that counsel from the Kansas Attorney Generals Office have vigorously
defended the challenged laws at the motion hearing, and have represented that they
will continue to do so, order, November 7, 2014, Doc. 35, p. 6; emphasis added. The
Kansas Attorney Generals carefully-worded public statement after the First Amended
Complaint was filed, referenced above, suggests that the Kansas Attorney General may
not continue to vigorously defend against the myriad of demands and claims for new
rights asserted by the ever-growing body of plaintiffs, which exposes the very concern
WBC continues to raise, to wit, the Kansas Attorney Generals focus of interest is
narrow, very narrow, perhaps as narrow as shepherding the question of same-sex
marriage licenses to the United States Supreme Court (where that Court can answer the
question for these state officials, rather than their conscience doing so); and it is
certainly way too narrow to protect WBC when the rights demanded are inevitably
expanded to include the right to have every church marry same-sex couples upon
demand. Thus, the Courts earlier reasoning appears to no longer fit this case, with the
various and sundry and potentially competing defense interests. The Court said in its
order denying WBC intervention: Here, there is not a continuum of possible outcomes
along which WBCs interest and the existing defendants interest may diverge. Rather
there are only two possible outcomes: either the Court permits Kansas to continue
14
enforcing its same-sex marriage ban, or the Court enjoins Kansas from enforcing the
ban. WBC and the existing defendants both seek the former result, order at 5-6;
emphasis added. Again, this reasoning no longer fits. Now there is in fact a continuum
of possible outcomes on a continuum of issues, which will be ever-growing. It is
absolutely appropriate for WBC to protect its interests in this milieu of same-sexmarriage-related issues.
18. The Kansas Attorney General does not have the experience or Bible lens of the WBC;
and it is not the Kansas Attorney Generals job to protect WBC and other churches from
being pressured or forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. WBC should be
allowed to intervene to protect its interests, which are not similar enough to the
governments interest for them to be protected by the government in these proceedings.
WHERFORE, based on the foregoing, WBC having demonstrated entitlement to
intervention both as a matter of right and permissively, WBC respectfully requests that
the Court permit it to intervene herein as a defendant; to file its attached Answer to First
Amended Complaint; and to fully participate in these proceedings to protect its unique
interests and rights raised by the plaintiffs claims, which cannot and will not be
protected by the other defendants, represented by the Kansas Attorney General and
whatever additional defense counsel may be joining the fray.
15
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Margie J. Phelps
______________________________________
Margie J. Phelps, Ks. Bar No. 10625
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 3725
Topeka, KS 66604
785-408-4598 (ph)
785-233-0766 (fx)
margie.phelps@cox.net
/s/ Rachel I. Hockenbarger
______________________________________
Rachel I. Hockenbarger, Ks. Bar No. 14442
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 4944
Topeka, KS 66604
785-554-0127 (ph)
785-233-0766 (fx)
Rachel.hockenbarger@outlook.com
ATTORNEYS FOR MOVANT INTERVENOR
WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion was served through the Courts
CM/ECF system on November 29, 2014, on all counsel of record herein.
______________________________________
Margie J. Phelps
16
Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 1 of 18
ATTACHMENT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KAIL MARIE, et al,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT D. MOSER, M.D., et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
Case No. 14-cv-02518-DDC/TJJ
ANSWER OF INTERVENOR DEFENDANT

WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
For their answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Westboro Baptist Church,
Inc. (WBC) states:
1. Paragraph 1: Admitted plaintiffs seek relief to engage in same sex marriage (along
with many other things in the First Amended Complaint); WBC is without sufficient
knowledge to admit or deny they are loving, committed same sex couples.
2. Paragraph 2: Admitted the Kansas constitution and statutes prohibit same sex
marriage, and codify a proper Scriptural marriage; denied this results in lesbians,
gay men or their children being treated as second class, undeserving, etc., because
it is the published sexual behavior that the Bible prohibits, if anything, that puts
these persons in this class they describe. Further, any moral opprobrium that may
attach to this pronounced published sexual behavior in todays society is not

something which the government should try to regulate, or from which the
government should relieve those who choose to engage in and publish this
unscriptural behavior.
3. Paragraph 3: Admitted Plaintiffs seek relief under the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and challenge the validity of Kansas
law. Denied they are entitled to this relief.
4. Paragraph 4: Denied that when two people marry they commit to building a life
together; divorce rates in this nation belie that fact. Marriage is defined in the Bible
along with its purposes, most notably as a symbol of the mystery of Christ and His
Bride, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, see, e.g., Ephesians 5.
5. Paragraph 5: Denied that plaintiffs suffer any harm by the government not issuing
them a marriage license.
6. Paragraph 6: WBC is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny if plaintiffs
are lesbians (since it is a behavior, and we have not witnessed the behavior), or that
they are in a committed, loving relationship.
are lesbians (since it is a behavior, and we have not witnessed the behavior), or that
they are in a committed, loving relationship.
are a gay couple (since it is a behavior, and we have not witnessed the behavior);
that they are in a committed, loving relationship; or that they obtained a marriage
license in Iowa.
have been in a committed, loving relationship; or that they obtained a marriage
license in Illinois.
10. Paragraph 10: WBC is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny that plaintiffs
have been in a committed, loving relationship; or that they obtained a marriage
licensed in Riley County, Kansas.
11. Paragraph 11: It is admitted that Dr. Moser is the Secretary of KDHE and his duties
include supervising Kansas system of vital records, etc. It is denied that Dr. Moser
has any ability to require or disallow same sex marriage licenses. It is also denied
that there is anything improper in designating a bride and groom for a marriage. It
is written on the hearts of mankind, and in Holy Writ, that this is the proper scheme
of things. Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them
male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Matt. 19:4-5. It would
tear asunder a proper Bible definition of marriage, and a strong societal foundation
flowing from this Bible precept, to force officials to remove bride and groom
from marriage licenses. It a serious matter to tamper with this pattern set by God.
And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the
bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy
merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations
deceived, Revelation 18:23; emphasis added.
12. Paragraph 12: It is admitted that Mr. Hamilton is the Clerk in Douglas County, and
issues marriage licenses. It is denied that Mr. Hamilton has any ability to require or
disallow same sex marriage licenses.
13. Paragraph 13: It is admitted that Mr. Lumbreras is the Clerk in Sedgwick County,
and issues marriage licenses. It is denied that Mr. Lumbreras has any ability to
require or disallow same sex marriage licenses.
14. Paragraph 14: It is admitted that Nick Jordan is the Secretary of the Kansas
Department of Revenue, responsible for issuing regulations and guidance on state
tax issues, and responsible for issuing drivers licenses.
15. Paragraph 15: It is admitted that Lisa Kasper is the Director of KDORs Division
of Vehicles, which issues drivers licenses.
16. Paragraph 16: It is admitted that Mike Michael is the Director of the State Employee
Health Plan for state employees, and the administration of that plan.
17. Paragraph 17 is admitted.
20. Paragraph 20: WBC is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Plaintiffs
joys and challenges of family life, etc. It is denied that Plaintiffs are treated in any
manner as second class, whatever that may mean. Again, moral disagreement
with this lifestyle is not something that can be regulated by the government.
4
21. Paragraph 21: WBC is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny paragraph
21.
22. Paragraphs 22-29 are not disputed; this is the method used by activists who wish to
impose the homosexual lifestyle on Kansans.
23. Paragraph 30 is admitted, but WBC expressly disputes that these claims have merit.
24. Paragraph 31: WBC is without sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph
31.
25. Paragraph 32: Paragraph 32 is admitted, and WBC affirmatively asserts that it is
well within the authority and proper government activity for health plans to exclude
same-sex spouses; there are legitimate governmental interests in doing so; and there
is no fundamental right to have access to health benefits in a particular form or
manner.
33, though WBC would not be surprised to know this is true, because homosexual
activists are constantly pushing for more rights and posturing with officials to
claim they were denied these rights.
27. Paragraph 34 is admitted, and WBC affirmatively asserts that it is well within the
authority and proper government activity for same-sex couples to be required to file
individual rather than joint or married income tax returns; there are legitimate
governmental interests in such limitations; and there is no fundamental right to be
allowed to file jointly or married instead of individually.
35, though if it is true, there is no legally recognizable claim because of this fact.
36, though if it is true, there is no legally recognizable claim because of this fact.
30. Paragraph 37 is admitted, but WBC expressly disputes that these claims have merit.
38; but if it is true, shame on the officials of Illinois; and this wrongful conduct by
Illinois should not bind Kansas officials, and plaintiffs have no fundamental right to
recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses.
39, but if it is true, shame on the Social Security Administration officials; and this
wrongful conduct by the SSA should not bind Kansas officials.
33. Paragraph 40 is admitted, and WBC affirmatively asserts that it is well within the
authority and proper government activity to deny a changed drivers license on the
weight of a same-sex marriage license from another state; there are legitimate
governmental interests in such limitations; and there is no fundamental right to a
drivers license, a changed drivers license, or a rule, regulation or policy that
requires state officials to change a drivers license on the weight of a same-sex
marriage license.
41; but if it is true that the modified drivers license was denied based on a samesex marriage license, WBC affirmatively asserts that this is well within the authority
6
and proper government activity to deny a changed drivers license on the weight of
a same-sex marriage license from another state; there are legitimate governmental
interests in such limitations; and there is no fundamental right to a drivers license,
a changed drivers license, or a rule, regulation or policy that requires state officials
to change a drivers license on the weight of a same-sex marriage license.
42, though it would not surprise WBC to know that an activist was working the
phones to try to box in government officials, pressuring them to yield to her desire
to have a same-sex marriage license treated as legitimate in Kansas.
36. Paragraph 43: Paragraph 43 is admitted, but WBC expressly disputes that these
claims have any merit.
37. Paragraph 44: WBC is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny paragraph
44, but if it is true, this should never have happened, and it is contrary to the best
interest of Kansans, and the government should not have permitted it to happen.
45; but if it is true, shame on the officials of the Social Security Administration, and
this wrongful conduct by SSA officials should not bind Kansas officials.
46, but it would not surprise us to know that activists are pressing officials to yield
to their demands about same-sex marriage; and WBC expressly denies that plaintiffs
were entitled to the new drivers licenses they sought, as they have no fundamental
right in such a drivers license.
7
40. Paragraphs 47-48:
WBC is without sufficient information to admit or deny
paragraphs 47-48, though it would not surprise us to know that activists are pressing
officials to yield to their demands about same-sex marriage; and WBC expressly
denies plaintiffs have a fundamental right to access to health care.
41. Paragraph 49 is denied.
42. Paragraphs 50-54: It is admitted that the legislation and constitutional amendment
referenced was passed; the rest of the language of these paragraphs is denied, as
they amount to nothing more than disagreement with the votes of legislators and
voters.
43. Paragraphs 55 and 56 are denied; persons who choose to engage in homosexual
behavior have full liberty in this country to do so, to live together, to make financial
arrangements together, to construct their wills to give their property to each other;
and to otherwise fully function as members of society. Single status, unmarried
persons living together in a sexual and romantic relationship, single parenthood and
divorce are too prevalent in this nation for anyone to seriously contend that you are
unable to function effectively and comfortably in American society without a
marriage license. The desire to have the government sanction this sin with a license
is not proper, and it is not a proper role of government to sanction sin.
44. Paragraph 57: It is admitted that the government can influence, and in fact this is
precisely why the government should not sanction this sin. The rest of paragraph
57 is denied, as the language amounts to nothing more than disagreement with moral
disapproval of this sin of homosexuality, and a craving to have the government
8
endorse the sin as a means to try to shake off the moral opprobrium that naturally
attends it.
45. Paragraph 58 is denied. There is no fundamental right to access to health care,
especially a specific or particular health care plan. Insurance is available to single
persons as well as couples; it is equally available to a single person who pronounces
that s/he engages in homosexual behavior as it is to one who does not; the
Affordable Care Act has guaranteed that everyone will have access to affordable
insurance; there is no legitimate loss with that oft-cited over-worked issue. It is not
the role of the government to respect a sinful manner of life.
46. Paragraphs 59-62 are denied. There are substantial and compelling government
interests in protecting the health and welfare of the people, including by not
endorsing sin with a marriage license; and by not exposing the citizens to the wrath
and anger of God for proud sin; and by not encroaching on a proper Scriptural
marriage, to the extent that has survived in any law or constitution. A marriage
license (vis--vis the ability to engage in an intimate relationship, live together, raise
children together, etc.) should not be given the status of a constitutional right (to the
extent any recent law says otherwise, we urge a change in that law); and it should
not be exalted to such just to satisfy the craving by those who engage in the sin of
homosexuality to have their sin sanctioned by the government as one of the means
of trying to remove the moral opprobrium that naturally does and should attend sin.
47. The Claims for Relief enumerated in erroneously numbered paragraphs 55-61 are
denied as being legitimate claims for relief under the law or the facts; and all
9
preceding paragraphs above are incorporated in response to the erroneously

numbered paragraph 55 incorporation.
48. Paragraph erroneously numbered 62 is not disputed to the measure it is reciting from
the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1983. WBC expressly denies that plaintiffs
are entitled to any relief under these provisions.
49. Paragraphs erroneously numbered 63-73 are denied; plaintiffs have not stated a
legitimate claim against any of these defendants; plaintiffs are not entitled to samesex marriage licenses under the laws and constitution of Kansas; plaintiffs have no
fundamental right to health care, filing joint or married income tax returns, or
renewed or changed drivers licenses.
50. The Claims for Relief enumerated in erroneously numbered paragraphs 74-80 are
denied as being legitimate claims for relief under the law or the facts; and all
preceding paragraphs above are incorporated in response to the erroneously
numbered paragraph 74 incorporation.
51. Paragraph erroneously numbered 81 is not disputed to the measure it is reciting from
the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1983. WBC expressly denies that plaintiffs
are entitled to any relief under these provisions.
52. Paragraphs erroneously numbered 82-92 are denied. It is specifically denied that
plaintiffs are prohibited from having a marriage ceremony at a church or any other
location of their choosing; and it is specifically asserted that the reason plaintiffs
desire a marriage license (above and beyond their ability to engage in same sex
sexual activity, to be involved in a same sex romantic relationship, to live as a same
10
sex couple, and to have any manner and an unlimited number of ceremonies
commemorating this same sex relationship), is because of a craving to have the
government endorse their sinful behavior; this is not a proper role of government.
WBC expressly denies that plaintiffs are entitled to or have a fundamental right in
recognition of out-of-state licenses; drivers licenses with names changed based on
same-sex marriage licenses; access to health benefits; or the right to file jointly or
married instead of individually, under the facts or law.
53. Paragraph erroneously numbered 93 is denied; the government would not know, and
does not need to know, plaintiffs (or anyone elses) sexual orientation or
proclivities; the law does not target any of such self-proclaimed sexual orientation
or proclivities; rather it codifies a proper scriptural marriage, in the measure the
government is going to license marriage.
54. Paragraph erroneously numbered 94 is denied; numerous legitimate and compelling
government interests are served by laws, regulations, policies and practices that
decline to enable the sin of same-sex unions.
55. Paragraph erroneously numbered 95 is denied; treating the sinful behavior of
homosexuality as sinful behavior is not discrimination. It is is factually and
constitutionally erroneous to equate moral disagreement with sinful behavior with
a long and painful history of discrimination. In WBCs considerable experience,
this kind of emotional rhetoric is just another way of saying people who engage in
sin do not want to be told their behavior is sinful. It is not a proper role of
11
government to sanction sin, or prohibit, discourage, or chill any citizen from calling
sinful behavior sinful behavior, by its official actions.
56. Paragraph erroneously numbered 96: It is not disputed that sexual orientation is
irrelevant to other societal engagement; nor is it necessary to keep pronouncing
sexual orientation.
57. Paragraphs erroneously numbered 97-98 are disputed, except that it is admitted that
all humans are born with depraved hearts and the propensity to engage in every form
of sin, including homosexuality. We dispute the plaintiffs suggestion that simply
because a person is born with a propensity towards the particular sin of
homosexuality, or cultivates that particular propensity, that this entitles that person
to some special status in the law because of that sin.
58. Paragraphs erroneously numbered 99-100 are disputed; to the contrary, American
society today is very open and welcoming of self-proclaimed sexual irregularities,
including fornication, divorce, remarriage, and homosexuality. Even those who
claim to have some disagreement with same sex marriage or homosexuality
generally (with very few exceptions) articulate their disagreement in such a manner
as to be welcoming of those who engage in these sexual irregularities; and there is
no societal stigma whatsoever for those who engage in and pronounce sexual unions
outside of that prescribed by the Bible (one man, one woman, for life), and in fact
the Bible standard is largely mocked and disregarded by American society. Any
voter initiative that makes a very modest attempt to have the barest of limits on
12
homosexual behavior, because of a desire to maintain some small vestige of a proper

Bible marriage, is not a valid basis for the government stepping in and licensing sin.
59. Paragraphs erroneously numbered 101-106 are denied; plaintiffs have not stated any
fundamental right that is being impeded by the government; and to the extent there
is any legal basis for suggesting a marriage license is a fundamental right, the
government has legitimate and compelling interest in denying the same to a samesex couple.
60. Paragraphs erroneously numbered 107-108 are denied; plaintiffs are not entitled to
have the government force society to treat same-sex unions as dignified, or in any
other manner that salves the conscience of those who engage in that sinful behavior;
and the bans in Kansas against doing so are based upon legitimate and compelling
government interests.
61. As to paragraphs erroneously numbered 109-113, and Prayer for Relief, paragraphs
A-F, it is denied plaintiffs are entitled to any relief in law. It is not the proper role
of the courts, or any branch of government, to give special protection to persons
because they engage in sinful conduct, make it their lifestyle, pronounce it, and
glory in it. To the extent there is any argument that any law from the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court justifies this Court doing so,
those legal authorities offer no binding opinion on the merits of this case as to these
unique circumstances presented by WBC; they do not address the issues raised by
WBC; there is no en banc opinion from the Tenth Circuit; there is no opinion from
13
the United States Supreme Court; and/or the law should be changed, and the Court
should so rule.
62. Affirmative Defenses:
a. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief.
b. Plaintiffs claims are barred by statute of limitations.
c. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
d. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
e. Plaintiffs proposal to require the State of Kansas to issue same sex marriage
licenses violates WBCs members constitutional rights, in that,
i. It violates their freedom of association, requiring them as citizens of
Kansas to associate with same sex marriage through its state
governments official acts.
ii. It violates their freedom of religion; the government is supposed to be
neutral on matters of religion; by issuing licenses to same sex
marriage couples, the government will take a position on this
moral/religious issue, against WBCs religion/religious beliefs;
iii. It violates their freedom of religion to be free from an imposed
government-respect and social recognition for same sex marriage; this
is the core desire by plaintiffs and others in similar litigation 1, to wit,
Financial issues, issues of being able to be involved in decisions such as health care and
family/children matters, pensions, tax issues, etc., are all secondary, and none of them are
without readily available alternatives and relief in todays society. Financial and
health/medical issues are faced by families of various configurations; a marriage license
14
to gain social recognition and approval, and respect, through the force
of government, for their sinful conduct; the government is not entitled
to force this view on any citizen; and any law that has this impact
violates WBCs religious beliefs;
iv. It violates their freedom of religion in that it exposes them to the risk
of same sex couples demanding WBC perform their marriage;
f. The laws of Kansas that limit marriage licenses to opposite sex couples is
supported by legitimate, substantial and compelling government interests in
that it requires the government at least in some measure to only license what
God has recognized as a marriage.2
g. The laws of Kansas that limit marriage licenses to opposite sex couples is
supported by legitimate, substantial and compelling government interests in
protecting the health and welfare of the citizens of Kansas.
h. There is no fundamental right to a drivers license.
i. There is no fundamental right to access to a health care plan.
doesnt resolve these issues; these are distractions, when the core issue is a desire for the
government to put its imprimatur of respectability, and the force of its arm, on this sinful
union, just like the government eventually and wrongfully did regarding
divorce/remarriage.
2
The laws would be even more proper if they limited marriage licenses to those who had
no prior living spouse, because divorce/remarriage is contrary to Gods law, per the words
of the Lord Jesus Christ, who said divorce/remarriage is adultery. But I say unto you,
That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery,
Matthew 5:32, King James Bible.
15
j. There is no fundamental right to file joint or married income tax returns

instead of individual.
k. There is no fundamental right to recognition of out-of-state marriage
licenses.
l. WBC reserves the right to plead such additional affirmative defenses as may
be warranted in law or equity that might become apparent as litigation
unfolds.
63. For all the reasons set out in WBCs Motion to Intervene the State is unable to
protect WBCs interests herein, thus WBC should be permitted to intervene as a
defendant herein, defend the current law, and protect and assert its constitutional
rights and interests.
64. WBCs Prayer for Relief: WBC prays that plaintiffs take nothing by their
Complaint; no relief should be afforded whatsoever pursuant to the well-established
law of Kansas, enacted in compliance with all statutory, constitutional and
legislative requirements as well as the overwhelming vote of the citizens of Kansas,
which should be untouched. WBC requests, that if the Court should issue a ruling
that same sex marriage licenses must be issued, that WBC be given declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief that WBC is not required, for religious reasons, to
perform same sex marriages; and that WBC is not required to rent, lend or otherwise
make available any of her properties or good offices to host or otherwise enable
same sex marriage in any fashion; and any person is enjoined from trying to force
them to do the same. WBC further requests such additional relief in law and equity
16
as is necessary to protect and preserve WBCs religious, association, speech and

other federal, state and/or local constitutional and/or statutory rights, including but
not limited to civil rights laws and ordinances and the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (to the extent still applicable involving actions of the federal
government which may flow from a ruling requiring licensing of same sex
marriages in Kansas); or otherwise, in law or equity.
65. WBCs Motion to Intervene filed herewith is incorporated herein in full, as though
set out verbatim, as part of this Answer.
66. As to the designation of Kansas City as the place of trial, WBC has no objection.
17
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
Margie J. Phelps, Ks. Bar No. 10625
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 3725
Topeka, KS 66604
785-408-4598 (ph)
785-233-0766 (fx)
margie.phelps@cox.net
/s/ Rachel I. Hockenbarger
______________________________________
Rachel I. Hockenbarger, Ks. Bar No. 14442
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 4944
Topeka, KS 66604
785-554-0127 (ph)
785-233-0766 (fx)
Rachel.hockenbarger@outlook.com
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR
DEFENDANT WESTBORO BAPTIST
CHURCH, INC.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer of Intervenor Defendant
Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. to First Amended Complaint was served through the Courts
CM/ECF system on November 29, 2014, on all counsel of record herein.
______________________________________
Margie J. Phelps
18

2:14-cv-02518 #53

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2:14-cv-02518 #53

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

KAIL MARIE, et al,

Case No. 14-cv-02518-DDC/TJJ

RENEWED MOTION TO INTERVENE OF

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 2 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 3 of 16

Expect your governments to become inefficient and

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 4 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 5 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 6 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 7 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 8 of 16

The First Amended Complaint adds new plaintiffs and new

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 9 of 16

The scope of this litigation has changed

E.g., from Online: https://twitter.com/sallyeastman1 (last visited November 28, 2014):

Sally Eastman @sallyeastman1 Nov 13

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 10 of 16

We also emphasize, as did the district court, that todays

And from Online: http://bit.ly/1yDcX24 (lasted visited November 28, 2014):

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 11 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 12 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 13 of 16

compromise on the standard of God is naturally and organically an uncomfortable fit,

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 14 of 16

adequately represent the interests of WBC is no longer applicable, and warrants

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 15 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53 Filed 11/29/14 Page 16 of 16

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

KAIL MARIE, et al,

Case No. 14-cv-02518-DDC/TJJ

ANSWER OF INTERVENOR DEFENDANT

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 2 of 18

attach to this pronounced published sexual behavior in todays society is not

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 3 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 4 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 5 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 6 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 7 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 8 of 18

40. Paragraphs 47-48:

WBC is without sufficient information to admit or deny

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 9 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 10 of 18

preceding paragraphs above are incorporated in response to the erroneously

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 11 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 12 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 13 of 18

homosexual behavior, because of a desire to maintain some small vestige of a proper

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 14 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 15 of 18

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 16 of 18

j. There is no fundamental right to file joint or married income tax returns

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 17 of 18

as is necessary to protect and preserve WBCs religious, association, speech and

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 53-1 Filed 11/29/14 Page 18 of 18

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi