14-556 bentley gov of al

8/9/2019 14-556 Bentley Gov of AL

1/47


2/47

(AdditionalCaseCaptions)SSSSSSSSSSS�SSSSSSSSSSS

V ALERIAT ANCO ,et al.,Petitioners,

vs.

W ILLIAMEDWARD“BILL”H ASLAM,et al.,Respondents.

SSSSSSSSSSS�SSSSSSSSSSS

A PRILDEBOER,et al.,Petitioners,

vs.

RICKSNYDER,et al.,Respondent.


GREGORYBOURKE,et al.,Petitioners,

vs.

STEVEBESHEAR,Respondent.


(AdditionalCounselfor Amicus Curiae GovernorRobertJ.Bentley)

AdamJ.MacLeod5345AtlantaHighway

Montgomery,AL36109(334)[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/47

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

INTERESTOFTHE AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . 1

SUMMARYOFARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

I. MarriageandNon-Marriage ....... 6

II. Full, legal equality between married couplesandsame-sexcouplescannotbe achieved without eliminating the fundamental rights and duties of biological parentsand kin and thereby jeopardizingtherightsofchildren. . 11

A. Full equality is not achieved by extending legal recognition to same-sexcouples,as the lawsof MassachusettsandsimilarStates show. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


4/47

ii

B. The only way to create fullequality between marriage andsame-sex relations would be toeradicatethefundamentalrightsofchildrentobeconnectedlegallytotheirbiologicalparents,whichgovernmentshavenopowertodo............................14

III. ThepowertoassignprivilegesandotherincidentsofmarriagetorelationsthatarelikemarriageisreservedtotheStatesbytheTenthAmendment. . . . . . . . . . . . 18

A. Different States exercise theirsovereigntytoregulatethefamilydifferently. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

B. Alabama and States like it

exercise their sovereignty toaffirmmarriageandthebiologicalfamilythatarisesfromit;thisisacompellingstateinterest.... 26

C. No morally-neutral reason, noconstitutional doctrine, providesany basis to prefer the laws ofMassachusetts to those of Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34


5/47

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl,133S.Ct.2552,2574-75(2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Cooner v. Alabama State Bar ,59So.3d29(Ala.2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Ala. Policy Inst.,___So.3d___,2015Ala.Lexis33(Ala.Mar.3,2015).3

Ex parte State of Alabama,57So.3d704,719(Ala.2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health,798N.E.2d941,995-97(Mass.2003) ......... 13,24

Haddock v. Haddock,

201U.S.562,575(1906) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Holder v. Hall,512U.S.874,881(1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Hunter v. Rose,975N.E.2d857,861-62(Mass.2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

In Re Burrus,136U.S.586,594(1890) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,21

J.M.V. v. J.K.H.,149So.3d1100(Ala.Civ.App.2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


6/47

iv

Lawrence v. Texas,539U.S.558(2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Lewis v. Harris,908A.2d196,222(N.J.2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,33

Lofton v. Secretary of the Dept. of Children andFamily Services,358F.3d804,809(11thCir.2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Loving v. Virginia,388U.S.1,12(1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,22

Meyer v. Nebraska,262U.S.390,399-400(1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431U.S.494,504(1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Murphy v. Ramsey,

114U.S.15,45(1885) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,16

National Federation of Independent Business v.Sebelius,132S.Ct.2566,2592(2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

New York v. United States,505U.S.144,181-82(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Nguyen v. Holder ,21N.E.3d1017,1021-22(N.Y.2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


7/47

v

Opinion of the Justices No. 179,275Ala.547,549,156So.2d639,641(1961) ....... 2

Opinion of the Justices to the Senate,802N.E.2d565,581n.3(Mass.2004) . . . . . . . . . 11,24

Parham v. J.R.,442U.S.584,602(1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Pierce v. Society of Sisters,268U.S.510,535(1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Plyler v. Doe,457U.S.202,216(1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Printz v. United States,521U.S.898,919(1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Schuette v. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action,134S.Ct.1623,1637(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Searcy v. Strange,___F.Supp.3d___,2015U.S.DistLexis7776 (S.D.Ala.Jan.23,2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,7,8,28

Skinner v. Oklahoma,316U.S.535,541(1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,22

Smith v. Organization of Foster Families,431U.S.816,845(1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,17,23

http:///reader/full/F.Supp.3dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.3d


8/47

vi

Strawser v. Strange,___ F.Supp.3d___,U.S.DistLexis8439(S.D.Ala.Jan.26,2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Troxel v. Granville,530U.S.57,65(2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

United States v. Windsor ,133S.Ct.2675,2692(2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,19,21,32

Williams v. North Carolina,317U.S.287,298(1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,21

Williams v. North Carolina,325U.S.226,233(1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,21

Statutes

A LA . CODETitle26,Chapter10A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A LA . CODETitle30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A LA . CODE § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A LA . CODE§22-9A-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A LA . CODE§26-10A-7(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A LA . CODE§26-17-201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A LA . CODE § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

http:///reader/full/F.Supp.3dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.3d


9/47

vii

A LA . CODE § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A LA . CODE § 3 0 - 1 - 1 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A LA . CODE§30-1-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A LA . CODE § 3 8 - 1 2 - 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A LA . CODE § 4 0 - 7 - 1 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A LA . CODE § 4 3 - 8 - 4 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A LA . CODE § 4 3 - 8 - 9 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A LA . CODE§45-28-70(f)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

M . G . L . c . 2 0 7 § 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

M . G . L . c . 2 0 7 § 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

M . G . L . c . 2 0 7 , § 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

M.G.L.c.209C,§6, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

M . G . L . c . 2 7 2 , § 1 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

Constitutional Authority

Art.I,§36.03,A LA . CONST. ( 1 9 0 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Art.V,§113,A LA . CONST. ( 1 9 0 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


10/47

viii

Art.V,§120,A LA . CONST.(1901) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

U.S. CONST.amend.IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,16,18

U.S. CONST.amend.X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,18,19

Other Authorities

1WilliamBlackstone,Commentaries on the Laws ofEngland 434(UniversityofChicagoPress(1979)(1765)....... 17

2JamesKent,Commentaries on American Law 22567(Boston,Little,Brown&Co.,O.W.Holmes,Jr.Ed.,1 2 t h e d . 1 8 7 3 ) ( 1 8 5 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

AdamJ.MacLeod,The Search for Moral Neutralityin Same-Sex Marriage Decisions,

23BYUJournalofPublicLaw1,54-58(2008) . 27,34

Black’s Law Dictionary 970(8thed.2004) . . . . . . . 1

JamesR.Stoner,Jr.,Common Law and LiberalTheory:Coke, Hobbes, and the Origins of AmericanConstitutionalism 78-83(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

JeffreyD.Jackson,Blackstone’s Ninth Amendment: A Historical Common Law Baseline for theInterpretation of Unenumerated Rights,62OklahomaL.Rev.167(2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


11/47

ix

LarryKramer,Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict ofLaws, and the Unconstitutional Public PolicyException,106YaleL.J.1965,1971(1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

MatthewB.O’Brien,Why Liberal NeutralityProhibits Same-Sex Marriage: Rawls, PoliticalLiberalism, and the Family,1BritishJournalofAmericanLegalStudies411

(2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

PatrickLeeandRobertP.George,Conjugal Union: What Marriage is and Why itMatters (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

SherifGirgis,RyanT.Anderson,andRobertP.George,What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense(2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,23

SherifGirgis, Windsor: Lochnerizing on Marriage?,64CaseWesternReserveLawReview,971,1001-04(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,31

TheBostonGlobe, Accrediting Agency to ReviewGordon College (July11,2014),availableathttp://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency-review-whether-gordon-college-antigay-stancepolicies-violate-accreditingstandards/Cti63s3A4cEHLGMPRQ5NyJ/story.html(lastvisitedJanuary30,2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agenchttp://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agenc


12/47

x

TheBostonGlobe,Catholic Charities Stuns State,Ends Adoptions (March11,2006),availableathttp://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11 /catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/(last visitedJanuary30,2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

TheBostonGlobe,Gay Married Man Says CatholicSchool Rescinded Job Offer (January30,2014),availableat

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/29/dorchester-man-files-discrimination-against-catholic-schoolsays-lost-job-because-was-gaymarried/0KswVITMsOrruEbhsOsOeN/story.html(lastvisitedJanuary30,2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

WilliamBaude,Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Lawin Federal Statutes,64StanfordL.Rev.1371,1390(2012) . . . . . . . . . . . 34

WSFANews,ALHealthDept.UpdatingMarriage

FormsinWakeofGayMarriageRuling(February5,2015),availableathttp://www.wsfa.com/story/28034821/al-health-deptupdating-marriage-forms-in-wake-of-gay-marriageruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

“What About the Children? Liberal Cautions onSame-Sex Marriage,”inTheMeaningofMarriage:Family,State,Market,andMorals36(RobertP.GeorgeandJeanBethkeElshtain,eds.,2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/29/dorchehttp://www.wsfa.com/story/28034821/al-health-depthttp://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/29/dorchehttp://www.wsfa.com/story/28034821/al-health-dept


13/47

1

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE 1

Amicus curiae, as Governor of Alabama, isconstitutionally vested with the supreme executivepoweroftheStateofAlabama.Art.V,§113,A LA .CONST.(1901).HeisconstitutionallydesignatedchiefmagistratefortheStateofAlabama.Id.Further,theGovernor is constitutionally required to“...take carethatthelawsbefaithfullyexecuted.”Art.V,§120,

A LA .CONST.(1901).

With regard to the Governor’s constitutionalauthority,theAlabamaSupremeCourthasstated:

...theseexpressconstitutionalprovisions,allof which are of course unique to the office ofgovernor, plainly vest the governor with anauthoritytoactonbehalfoftheStateofAlabamaand to ensure “that the laws [are] faithfullyexecuted”thatis“supreme”tothe“duties”given

theotherexecutive-branch officialscreatedbythesameconstitution.See generally Black’s LawDictionary 970 (8th ed. 2004) (defining a

1 TheClerkofthisCourthasnotedonthedockettheblanket

consentofallRespondentstothefilingofamicus curiaebriefs.WrittenconsentfromcounselforPetitionerstothefilingofthisamicus curiae briefaccompaniesthisamicuscuriae brief.Thisbriefof Amicus Curiae GovernorRobert

J.Bentleywasnotauthoredinwholeorinpartbycounselforanypartytothesecases.Nosuchcounselorpartyhasmadeamonetarycontributionintendedtofundthepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.


14/47

2

“magistrate”as“[t]hehighest-rankingofficialinagovernment,suchasthekinginamonarchy,the president in a republic, or governor in astate.–Also termed chief magistrate; firstmagistrate.”). See also Opinion of the JusticesNo. 179, 275Ala. 547, 549, 156 So.2d 639, 641(1961): “The laws of the state contemplatedomestic peace. To breach that peace is tobreach the law, and execution of the laws

demandsthatpeacebepreserved. Thegovernorischargedwiththedutyoftakingcarethatthelaws be executed and, as a necessaryconsequence,of taking care that thepeace bepreserved.”

Ex parte State of Alabama, 57So.3d 704, 719 (Ala.2010).

Further,inSearcy v. Strange,___F.Supp.3d___,2015U.S.DistLexis7776(S.D.Ala.Jan.23,2015)and

Strawser v. Strange,___F.Supp.3d___,U.S.DistLexis8439(S.D.Ala.Jan.26,2015),theCourtdeclaredthe AlabamaSanctityofMarriageAmendment, Art.I,§

236.03,A LA .CONST.(1901),andtheAlabamaMarriageProtectionAct,A LA .CODE§30-1-19,unconstitutional,leadingtoasituationinwhichprobatejudgesinsomecounties have refused to issue marriage licenses tosamesexcouples,ornotatall,whileprobatejudgesinother counties issue marriage licenses to same- andopposite- sex couples. See, A LA . CODE § 30-1-9

2 TheSanctityofMarriageAmendmentwasapprovedby81%ofthevotersinAlabamain2006.

http:///reader/full/F.Supp.3dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.3dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.3dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.3d


15/47

3

(“Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges ofprobate of the several counties.”) Moreover, onFebruary 8, 2015, Alabama Supreme Court ChiefJusticeRoy S.Moore, asadministrativehead ofthe Alabama unified judicial system, issued an order to Alabamaprobate judges that they shallnot issueorrecognizeamarriagelicensethatisinconsistentwith Alabama law. Then on March 3, 2015, the AlabamaSupremeCourtgrantedanoriginalpetitionforthewrit

of mandamus commanding probate judges to ceaseissuingmarriage licensestosamesex couplesbaseduponitsfindingthatAlabama’sSanctityofMarriage AmendmentandMarriageProtectionActdonotviolatetheU.S.Constitution.Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Ala. Policy Inst.,___So.3d___,2015Ala.Lexis33(Ala.Mar.3,2015).Thus,theGovernorhasadirectandconstitutionally-basedinterestintheoutcomeofthesecases.


16/47

4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Marriage equality does not exist in the UnitedStates. It cannot be made to exist in law withoutdestroying the rights ofchildren tobeconnected totheirbiologicalparents.NoStatecanaffordtodothat.EventhoseStatesthathaveextendedlegalrecognitionto same-sexcouples continuetodistinguish betweenmarriageandsame-sex“marriage.”Thereasonisplain:

Marriage is a natural reality that States mustdistinguishfromallotherformsofhumansociability,including same-sex relationships, for thepurpose ofsecuringtherightsandwell-beingofchildren.

Bycontrasttomarriage,same-sex“marriage”isasocialexperiment,arecentproductofpositivelaw.Itspurposeistoaffirmthesexualdesiresandchoicesofadults. This experiment threatens to obscure thenaturalrightsanddutiesofmarriageandparentagebycommunicatingthemessagethatonlybigotsthinkthat

childrenshouldbeconnectedtoboththeirfatherandtheirmother.AnditimposesothercostsonStatesandtheircitizens,especiallythelossofreligiouslibertyandotherfreedomstodistinguishbetweenmarriageandnon-maritalrelations.

AsthisCourthasrecognizedonseveraloccasions,thefundamentalrightofmarriageistherightoftheintact,biologicalfamilytomaintainitsintegrity,sothatits members can honor their natural duties to eachother.ThatrightisamongthoseunenumeratedrightsreservedtothepeopleintheNinthAmendment.Thoserights and dutiesare fundamental to, and shape, all


17/47

5

statelawsconcerningmarriageandfamily,includingthoseincidentsandprivilegesthatarenotpartofthefundamental law, such asprivileges of adoption andfoster care. Over those laws States have reservedsovereigntythroughtheTenthAmendment.

States have compelling interests in shaping theprivileges and incidents of marriage to secure thefundamentalrightsanddutiesofmarriage,asStates

such as Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, andTennessee have done. Those compelling interestsincludesecuringtherightsofchildrentobeconnectedtotheirbiologicalparents,preservingdistinctofficesfor mothers and fathers, and incentivizing andharnessingthebenefitsofkinshipaltruism.

ToruleforthePetitionerswouldnecessarilyrequireUnitedStatescourtstoarrogatemuchoftheStates’sovereignpowerovermaritalrelations.WhetherthisCourtstrikesdownlawsdistinguishingmarriagefrom

same-sexcouplingsorrequiresallStatestorecognizesame-sex “marriages”officiated inotherStates, thefederaljudiciarywouldgetitselfintothebusinessofdecidingwhichincidentsofmarriageandfamilylaware validinthenewlegalorderandwhicharenot.Thereisnobasisinlaw,andthereforenoneutralground,on whichtomakethosedeterminations.To rule for thePetitionerswouldconvertthefederaljudiciaryintoaninstitutionofmoraldisapprobationandwill,andwouldcompromiseitsintegrityasaninstitutionoflaw.


18/47

6

ARGUMENT

I. MarriageandNon-Marriage

Alabamalawdistinguishesbetweenmarriageandnon-marriage.Thatdistinctionisfundamentalin,andfoundationalto,thelawofallfiftyStatesandtheUnitedStatesasaNation.ThatiswhyallfiftyStates,includingthosethatissuemarriagelicensestosame-sexcouples,

continuetodistinguishbetweenmarriageandsame-sexunions for many purposes (e.g., rights of biologicalparents,presumptions of paternity,presumptions ofmaternalcustody,presumptionsin favorofbiologicalkinrelationsinfostercare).Thoseincidentsofmarriagethat distinguish between marriage and same-sexcouplingsarethosethatsecurethefundamentalrightsofchildrentobeconnectedtotheirbiologicalparents,andtherightsanddutiesofparentstocarefortheirbiologicalchildren.

Thefundamentalrightofmarriageistherightoftheintact,biologicalfamilytomaintainitsintegrityfreefromoutsideinterference,asthisCourthasaffirmedonseveral occasions. Smith v. Organization of FosterFamilies,431U.S.816,845(1977)(RighttomarryandreproduceolderthanBillofRights;sourceofrightoffamilyprivacynotinlawbutinintrinsichumanrights). As this Court has alsoaffirmed, the integrityof thefamilyisgroundedonthemonogamousunionofamanandwomanforlife,thesourceofhealthychildrenand

thecontinuationofcivilization.Murphy v. Ramsey,114U.S.15,45(1885).Theintegrityofthebiologicalfamilyenables its members tofulfill themutualduties that


19/47

7

eachmemberofthefamilyowestotheothers.NoStatehascreatedfullmarriageequalitysimplybecausetheonly way to make marriages and same-sex unionscompletelyequalinlawwouldbetoeradicatefromlawthe securities for children to be connected to theirbiological parents and biological parents to beconnectedtoeachother.Thoserightsanddutiesarefundamental to our laws and cannot lawfully beeradicatedfromtheincidentsofmarriage.

ThisconnectionbetweenmarriageandtherightsofchildreniswhattheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfailedtonoticewhenstrikingdownAlabama’sconstitutionaland statutory codifications of its fundamental lawsgoverningthestructureofmarriage.TheDistrictCourtinSearcy v. Strange, supra,erroneouslyassumedthatmarriageisaproductofAlabama’spositivelawsandthereby supposed that by striking those positiveenactments,ithadissuedadiscreet,coherentjudgmentandorder.Butmarriageisfundamentaltonearlyeveryareaofstatelaw.Thelawsthateitherexpresslycodifyorpresupposethefundamentallawofmarriageastheunionofamanandawomanincludeallofthestatutesgoverningmaritalanddomesticrelations,A LA .CODETitle30,andallthejudicialdecisionsinterpretingthem;thepresumptionofpaternity,A LA .CODE§26-17-204,andotherrulesforestablishmentoftheparent-childrelationship,A LA .CODE §26-17-201; lawsgoverningconsenttoadopt,A LA .CODE§26-10A-7(3),andallotherlawsgoverningadoption,A LA .CODETitle26,Chapter

10A;terminationofparentalrights,A LA .CODE§12-15319; all laws that presuppose people of differentgendersoccupyingthepositionsof“father,”“mother,”


20/47

8

“husband,”and“wife,”e.g.A LA .CODE§40-7-17;lawsgoverning intestate distribution, the spousal share, A LA .CODE §43-8-41,and the shareofpretermittedchildren, A LA .CODE § 43-8-91; legal protections fornon-marital children, A LA . COD E § 26-17-202;registrationofbirths,A LA .CODE§22-9A-7,J.M.V. v.J.K.H.,149So.3d1100(Ala.Civ.App.2014)(Indisputesbetweenunmarriedparentsastosurnameoftheirchild,parent seeking name change has burden to prove

changeisinbestinterestofchild.);conflict-of-interestrules and other ethical standards prohibiting sexualrelations, A LA . CODE § 45-28-70(f)(1), Cooner v. Alabama State Bar ,59So.3d29(Ala.2010)(RuleofProfessional Conduct prohibiting lawyer frompreparinganinstrumentgivingthelawyeroracloserelativeof the lawyer any substantialbenefit fromaclient,exceptwheretheclientisrelatedtothedonee,includesrelativesofthelawyerbymarriage.);andlawspresupposingbiologicalkinrelations,A LA .CODE§3812-2.

Thiscompilationdoesnoteven include standardsgoverning school curricula and accreditation,professionallicensingandethics,andmanyotherstatelawsthatimplicitlyorexpresslydefinemarriagebyitsnaturalcontoursastheunionofamanandawoman.TheDistrictCourtinSearcyhasnotexplainedwhichofthese incidents of marriage it now deemsunconstitutional.ThesameproblemafflictsPetitioners’claimsinthesecases.ThisCourtshouldresolvethe

questionhowmuch,ifany,ofthefundamentallawofmarriageit intends toeliminate from the law oftheStates.


21/47

9

If Petitioners are asking for full marriageequality—theexactsamemarriageinstitutionwithallofthesamerightsandduties—thentheonlywaytoachievethatistoremovefromlawtheprotectionsforchildrenandbiologicalparents.If,ontheotherhand,Petitionersarecontenttoleavethefundamentalrightsofchildreninplace,thentheyarenotaskingforalloftherights,duties,presumptions,andotherincidentsofmarriage.

As thisCourtaffirmed in Windsor ,theStatesdohavethepowertodefinethose privilegesofmarriagethatdonotthreatenthefundamentalrightsanddutiesofmarriage.SomeStateshaveexercisedtheir“powerindefiningthemaritalrelation”toconferuponsame-sexcouples“adignityandstatusofimmenseimport.”United States v. Windsor ,133S.Ct.2675,2692(2013).Thatisavalueverydifferentfromprotectingtherightsofchildrentohavelegalconnectionstotheirbiologicalparents.BecausetheStatesretain“sovereignpower”todefine the privileges of marriage, id. at 2693, thoseStatesarewithintheirrightthatusemarriagelawtoconfer approbation upon intimate same-sexrelationships. That those States still differentiatebetween marriage and same-sex unions shows that Alabamaisalsowithinitsrighttocontinuetosetaparttheintact,biologicalfamilyasmarriage.

Indeed,therearecompellingreasonsforStatestocallmarriagesandsame-sexunionsbydifferentnames.

OnlythoseStatesthatreservethename“marriage”forunionsthataremaritalinfactareabletomakecleartheuniqueimportanceandfundamentalrightsandduties


22/47

10

of the biological, parent-child relationship. To forceStates to redefine marriage is to obscure the non-fungible value of mother and father; it is tocommunicatethemessagethatitisnotimportantforfathersandmotherstoremaincommittedtoeachotherbecausenorationalpersonwouldbelievethathavingconnectionstobothmotherandfatherwouldmakeanydifferenceforchildren.

Whatever the merits of using marriage laws toexpress official approval of the sexual relations ofadults, the Courtwouldsacrifice its neutralityasaninstitutionof law and judgment were it to force thesame-sexconceptionofmarriageonthoseStatesthatcontinuetosetapartmarriage—theunionofmanand womanoutofwhicharisesthebiological family.Thecostofredefiningmarriageisthesacrificeofimportantandenduringtruthsaboutthefundamentalrightsanddutiesof the father-mother-child relation,which thefundamentalrightofmarriagehasalwayssecured.


23/47

11

II. Full, legal equality between marriedcouplesandsame-sexcouplescannotbeachieved without eliminating thefundamental rights and duties ofbiological parents and kin and thereby jeopardizingtherightsofchildren.

A. Full equality is not achieved byextending legal recognition to

same-sexcouples,asthelawsofMassachusettsandsimilarStatesshow.

States such as Massachusetts and New Yorkcontinuetodistinguishbetweenmarriageandsame-sexrelations for thesame reason thatAlabamadoes: tosecurethedutiesofparentstotheirchildrenandtoeach other for their children’s sake. For example,Massachusettsretainsinitsstatutesthepresumptionofpaternity,identifyingwhen“amanispresumedtobethefatherofachild,”MassachusettsGeneralLawsc.209C,§6,thoughthatpresumptioncannotapplytoaman-man “marriage” the same as it does to a realmarriage.Opinion of the Justices to the Senate,802N.E.2d565,581n.3(Mass.2004)(Cordy,J.,dissenting).Massachusettsevenappliesthepresumptiontowoman- woman“marriage”solongasboththebiologicalfatherandthenon-motherwomaninthemarriageconsent.Hunter v. Rose,975N.E.2d857,861-62(Mass.2012). Yet,itwouldstraincredulitytopresumepaternitybya

womanmarriedtoamother.SeeAdamJ.MacLeod,Fundamental Rights and Concessions of Privilege,


24/47

12

a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / w o r k s . b e p r e s s . com/adam_macleod/21/at1-2.

TheincestprohibitioninMassachusettslaw,M.G.L.c.272,§17,isdefinedbyitsopposite-sexpredicates.“No man shall marry his mother, grandmother,daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother,grandfather’s wife, grandson’s wife, wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife ’s

granddaughter,brother’sdaughter,sister’sdaughter,father’ssisterormother’ssister.”M.G.L.c.207§1.“No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son,grandson,brother,stepfather,grandmother’shusband,daughter’s husband, granddaughter’s husband,husband’s grandfather, husband’s son, husband’sgrandson,brother’sson,sister’sson,father’sbrotherormother’sbrother.”M.G.L.c.207,§2.Massachusettsalsoretainsitspolygamyprohibition,M.G.L.c.207§4.Theselawscodifynormsthatpresupposethatmarriageiswhatitisinbiologicalfact—theunionofamananda woman. See Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, andRobert P. George, What is Marriage?: Man andWoman: A Defense (2012).

Recently,thehighcourtofNewYorkinterpretedNew York’s incest prohibitioninlightof its rationalbasis that incestcarries a riskofgenetic defects inpotential biological offspring. Nguyen v. Holder , 21N.E.3d1017,1021-22(N.Y.2014).Thatrulealsomakesnosenseifappliedtosame-sexcouples.(TheNewYork

courtalsoidentifiedtheState’sinterestinexpressingitsmoraldisapprovalofincest,butitisdifficulttosee

http://works.bepress/http://works.bepress/


25/47

13

howthatrationalecouldsurvivethisCourt’srulinginLawrence v. Texas,539U.S.558(2003)).

It is not difficult toperceive why Massachusetts,New York, and other States continue todistinguishbetweenmarriageandsame-sexrelations.Marriageistheonlyinstitutioncapableofsolvingtheproblemofestablishingnormativeconnectionsbetweenfathersandtheirchildren.Thisproblemwasexplainedwellmore

thanadecadeagobyaJusticeoftheMassachusettsSupreme Judicial Court: “Whereas the relationshipbetween mother and child is demonstratively andpredictably created and recognizable through thebiologicalprocessofpregnancyandchildbirth,thereisnocorrespondingprocess forcreatinga relationshipbetweenfatherandchild.”Marriagefillsthegap“byformallybinding the husband-father tohis wife andchild, and imposing on him the responsibilities offatherhood. The alternative, a society without theinstitution of marriage, in which heterosexualintercourse, procreation, and child care are largelydisconnectedprocesses,wouldbechaotic.” Goodridgev. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 995-97(Mass.2003)(Cordy,dissenting).


26/47

14

B. The only way to create fullequality between marriage andsame-sex relations would be toeradicatethefundamentalrightsofchildrentobeconnectedlegallytotheirbiologicalparents,whichgovernmentshavenopowertodo.

These facts, which have notably escaped the

attentionoftheinferiortribunalsthathavedecidedthemarriagequestion,revealthatfullmarriageequalityisnot something to be achieved by simply issuingmarriage licenses to same-sex couples. It requireseliminating the distinct offices of man and woman,husband and wife, father and mother from theinstitution of marriage. The only alternative todistinguishingbetweenmarriageandsame-sexunionsin law—the only way to create full “marriageequality”—istoeliminatefromlawalloftheincidentsthatsecurechildrentobothbiologicalparentsandthatsecure biological parents to each other. If same-sexcouplesmustbetreatedexactlythesameasmarriedcouples, then the law must eliminate those rights,duties,presumptions,andotherincidentsofmarriagethatprotectthefundamentalrightsofchildrenandtherightsanddutiesofparents.

Thelawmaintainsdistinctandnon-fungibleofficesforfatherandmotherbecausemothersandfathersaredistinct and non-fungible in fact. Every child has a

biologicalmotherandabiologicalfather,andonlyoneofeach.Marriageannealsthebondsbetweenfather


27/47

15

andmother,andtiesthatpairtothechildrentowhomtheyowenaturalduties.

Altering the jural relations within the biologicalfamilyisnotwithinthepolicepowersoftheState,muchlesstheenumeratedpowersofthenationalgovernment,becausetherightsofnaturalmarriageandbiologicalparenting are among “the basic civil rights of man.Marriageandprocreationarefundamentaltothevery

existence and survival of the race.” Skinner v.Oklahoma,316U.S.535,541(1942).Thismakesthedistinctionbetweenmarriageandnon-marriageverymuchunlikedistinctionsbasedonrace.Whilestrikingdownpositedstatutesthataddedtonaturalmarriage“distinctions drawn according to race,” the LovingCourtre-affirmedthatmarriageisorientedtowardthebearingandrearingofchildren,thatitis“fundamentaltoourveryexistenceandsurvival.”Loving v. Virginia,388U.S.1,12(1967).

Thefundamentalrighttomarryisgroundedinthefundamentaldutiesofbiologicalparentstoeachotherandtotheirchildren,andthedutiesandrightsofthechild’sextendedkinrelations.SeeAdamJ.MacLeod,Fundamental Rights and Concessions of Privilege,a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / w o r k s . b e p r e s s . com/adam_macleod/21/.Tobeclear,toaffirmthattherights and duties of the biological family arefundamentaldoesnotentailthattheyareincorporatedagainsttheStatesthroughtheDueProcessClauseof

theFourteenthAmendment.ItissimplytoaffirmthattheyemanatefromsourcesofauthorityotherthantheState’s sovereignty toenact positive laws. MacLeod,

http://works.bepress/http://works.bepress/


28/47

16

Fundamental Rights and Concessions of Privilege,at*7.TheyarepartofthefundamentallawoftheStatesand the Nation. SeeJames R.Stoner,Jr.,CommonLaw and Liberal Theory: Coke, Hobbes, and theOrigins of American Constitutionalism 78-83(1992).They are among the unenumerated rights denial of whichisprohibitedbytheNinthAmendment.

Thebiologicalfamilyprecedesthestate;thestate

didnotcreateit.Meyer v. Nebraska,262U.S.390,399400(1923).Therightsanddutiesofthefamilyariseoutofthenatureofmarriage,“consistinginandspringingfromtheunionforlifeofonemanandonewomanintheholyestateofmatrimony;thesurefoundationofallthatis stable and noble in our civilization.” Murphy v.Ramsey,114U.S.15,45(1885).Becausethedutiesaregroundedinnatureandnotthewillofthelawmaker,theStatehasnopowertoreconstitutethefundamentalrightsanddutiesofthebiologicalfamily.Thecomplexofjuralrelationsattheheartofmarriageandfamily

mustremainbeyondthereachofgovernmentpower.AsJustice Sotomayor has described one of these juralrelations,the“biologicalbondbetweenparentandchildismeaningful,”andtherightofabiologicalparentis“aninterestfarmorepreciousthananypropertyright.” Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl,133S.Ct.2552,2574-75(2013)(Sotomayor,dissenting).

Like other unenumerated rights secured by theNinth Amendment, the right of marriage should be

understoodwithreferencetoitscommonlawcontours,especiallyasspecifiedinBlackstone’sCommentaries.JeffreyD.Jackson,Blackstone’s Ninth Amendment:


29/47

17

A Historical Common Law Baseline for theInterpretation of Unenumerated Rights,62OklahomaL.Rev.167(2010).ForBlackstone,themost“universalrelationinnature”isthatbetweenbiologicalparentandchild,anditproceedsfromthefirstnaturalrelation,thatbetweenhusbandandwife.1WilliamBlackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England 434(UniversityofChicagoPress(1979)(1765).The“mainendanddesignofmarriage”isto“ascertainandfix

uponsomecertainperson,towhomcare,protection,themaintenance,andtheeducationofthechildrenshouldbelong.” Id. at 443. And those duties are duties ofnaturallaw.Id.at435,438-39.Positivelawdoesnotcreate the rightsandduties, itonlyaddssecuritytothem(ornot).ThefundamentalfamilylawsofAlabama,Massachusetts,andtheUnitedStatesarethusspecifiedby the common law understanding that marital andparentalrightsanddutiesaregroundedinthenatureoftheman-womanmaritalrelation,andthereforebeyondthe power ofgovernments toalter.See generally, 2

JamesKent,Commentaries on American Law 225-67(Boston,Little,Brown&Co.,O.W.Holmes,Jr.Ed.,12thed.1873)(1851);1Blackstone, Commentariesat435-40.

ThatiswhythisCourthasconsistentlylinkedtherightsofmarriageandparenthood,andhasidentifiedthemasthefundamentalrightofmotherandfathertofulfilltheirnaturaldutiestotheirbiologicalchildren.Therightssecuringthebiologicalfamily’sintegrityare

“intrinsichumanrights”thataredeeplyrootedinourNation’s“historyandtradition.”Smith v. Organizationof Foster Families,431U.S.816,845(1977),quoting


30/47

18

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431U.S. 494, 504(1977).

Failingtodistinguishbetweenmarriageandnon-marriage(includingsame-sexrelations)obscuresthefundamentalrightsanddutiesofthebiologicalfamily.This highlights an ambiguity in the Petitioners’arguments.Itisnotclearwhethertheyareaskingforfullequalitybetweenmarriageandsame-sexcouplings

orinsteadarecontenttoleavethefundamentalrightsand dutiesofnatural marriage inplace. If theyarecontenttoleavethoserightsanddutiesinplace,thenStatesmustbefreetodistinguishbetweenmarriage, which pertains to the father-mother-child triad, andnon-marital committed unions, to which variousprivilegesandincidentsofmarriagemightbeextended,ornot.

III. ThepowertoassignprivilegesandotherincidentsofmarriagetorelationsthatarelikemarriageisreservedtotheStatesbytheTenthAmendment.

A. Different States exercise theirsovereigntytoregulatethefamilydifferently.

For the reasons just stated, to say that a newdefinitionofmarriageisrequiredbytheConstitutionistoosimplistic,justasitwouldbetoosimplistictosay

that the matter is left entirely to the democraticprocesses.Thefactisthatthefundamentalrightofthebiological family—father-mother-children—is


31/47

19

presupposed by the Ninth Amendment, while theprivileges of marriage—presumption of paternity,adoption, recognition of same-sex and other lovinggroups,andotherincidentsofpositivelaw—arelefttoState court adjudication and democratic processes withintheStatesthroughtheTenthAmendment.

“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful andlegitimate concern in the marital status of persons

domiciled within its borders.” United States v.Windsor ,133S.Ct.2675,2691(2013),quotingWilliamsv. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942)(hereinafter, “Williams I ”). The States possess fullpower over marriage because the “ConstitutiondelegatednoauthoritytotheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates” overmarriage. Windsor ,133S.Ct.at2691,quotingHaddock v. Haddock,201U.S.562,575(1906).Nordoesthe federal judiciarysharepowerwith theStatestoadjudicatetherightsanddutiesofmarriageandparentage.Federalcourtshavenopowerof parens

patriae,nopowerofprobateanddivorce,andthereforeno jurisdiction over the natural rightsand duties ofhusbandandwifeandtheirbiologicalchildren.In ReBurrus,136U.S.586,594(1890);Williams v. NorthCarolina, 325 U.S. 226, 233 (1945) (hereinafter,“Williams II ”).Relationsbetweenhusbandandwife,father and child, mother and child, simply “are notmattersgovernedbythelawsoftheUnitedStates.”InRe Burrus,136U.S.at596.

ToruleforthePetitionerswouldnecessarilyrequireUnitedStatescourtstoarrogatemuchoftheStates’sovereignpowerovermaritalrelations.Whetherthis


32/47

20

Courtstrikesdownlawsdistinguishingmarriagefromsame-sexcouplingsorrequiresallStatestorecognizesame-sex “marriages” officiated inotherStates, thefederaljudiciarywouldgetitselfintothebusinessofdecidingwhichincidentsofmarriageandfamilylaware validinthenewlegalorderandwhicharenot.Tovestthat power in the federal judiciary would be a“usurpation” of an essential attribute of statesovereignty.SeeNational Federation of Independent

Business v. Sebelius,132S.Ct.2566,2592(2012).

Totakejustoneexample,lawsgoverninggestationalagreements (and other procreative activities notresulting from intercourse between a man and a woman)vary fromState toState. Because same-sexcouples cannot reproduce on their own, maternalsurrogacyisintrinsicallyandnecessarilyconnectedtoanynewrightsofsame-sexcouplestomarryandhavechildren.Iftwomarriedmenwillhaveaconstitutionalprivilegetoenterintogestationalagreementsandeggdonationcontractswithwomenfortheproductionofchildren, then the courts of the United States mustnecessarily require state officials to implement andenforcethatprivilege,oftenincontraventionofstatelaws,andsometimesintensionwithstatelawsdesignedtoprotecttherightsofwomenandchildren.ArticleIII judgeswill supersede state officials in their roles asofficersofstatefamilyandprobatelaws.

Onepurposeofstatesovereigntyistosecurethe

libertiesofcitizens. New York v. United States,505U.S. 144, 181-82 (1992). Those liberties include therightsofchildrentobeconnectedtotheirparentsand


33/47

21

the rights of integrity of the biological family. “ThedefinitionofmarriageisthefoundationoftheState’sbroaderauthoritytoregulatethesubjectofdomesticrelationswithrespecttothe‘[p]rotectionofoffspring,property interests, and the enforcement of maritalresponsibilities,’”Windsor ,133S.Ct.at2691,quotingWilliams I ,317U.S.at298,whicharerightsanddutiesof“husbandandwife,parentandchild.”Windsor ,133S. Ct. at 2691, quoting In Re Burrus, 136U.S. 586

(1890).

The States alone have power to regulate andadjudicatethelegalrelationsoffamiliesbecauseeachState alone has jurisdiction over families domiciled withinit.Williams II ,325U.S.at231-32.Marriageisnotmerelyan individualrightofanadult.Marriagesare “social institutions”withtheirowncomplexesof jural relations—both rights and duties—which arelocatedwithinparticularStates,andthoseStateshaveparticularinterestsinsecuringthoserightsandduties withthe forceoflawandjudgment.Williams II ,325U.S.at232.Statescannotaffordtoignoretherealityofnaturalmarriageandthebiologicalfamily,andStateshave the strongest interest in privileging andreinforcingthenaturalrightsanddutiesoffathersandmothers,toeachotherandtotheirchildren.Afterall,itistheStatesthatdealwiththeconsequencesofnon-maritalchildbirth,maritalinfidelity,divorce,deadbeatdads,exploitationofwomenandchildrentosatisfythedesiresofadults,andalloftheothercostsgeneratedby

selfishindividualswhofailtofulfilltheirmaritalduties. Whentherighttomarryisdivorcedfromthedutiesofthenaturalfamily,theStatesandtheirpeoplesuffer.


34/47

22

UsurpationofstatesovereigntywouldalsothreatentheautonomyoftheStatesthemselves.IfthisCourt weretousurpstatesovereigntyoverthe family,thenstateofficialswouldbecommandeeredintoenforcementof the uniform privileges and incidents of the newnationalrightofsame-sex“marriage,”ortheincidentsand privileges of other States’ same-sex unions. Inregulationofmarriageandthefamily,theStateswouldbecome“instrumentsoffederalgovernance.”Printz v.

United States,521U.S.898,919(1997).

Nosuchexpandedfederaljurisdictionisrequiredtosecuretherightsofnaturalmarriageandthenaturalfamily.Protectingthoserightsagainstencroachmentdoesnot requirefederalgovernanceofthefamily, itmerelyrequiresforbiddingStatestoplaceonthefamilyextraneousburdens,suchasanti-miscegenationlaws,Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), and forcedsterilization,Skinner v. Oklahoma,316U.S.535(1942).Bycontrast,anewrighttosame-sex“marriage”wouldbeentirelyaproductofthisCourt’sdecision—positivelaw—and would require for its realization newprivilegesoralterationofexistingprivilegesembeddedthroughoutstatelaw.

The fundamental marriage right is distinct fromlegalprivilegesofmarriage,suchastaxbenefits,andthelegalprivilegesofparentage,suchasadoption.AstheEleventhCircuithasexplained,“Unlikebiologicalparentage, which precedes and transcends formal

recognitionbythestate,adoptioniswhollyacreatureof the state.” Lofton v. Secretary of the Dept. ofChildren and Family Services,358F.3d804,809(11th


35/47

23

Cir.2004).Therefore,thepracticeofadoptingisnotafundamental right, but rather aprivilegecreatedbystate law. Id. at 811-15. Yet even that privilege isshapedandspecifiedwithreferencetothefundamentalrightsanddutiesofthebiologicalfamily.AsthisCourthasobserved,byoperationofstatelaws,adoptionisthe“legalequivalentofbiologicalparenthood.”Smith,431U.S.at844n.51.Stateshaveacompellingreasontoshapetheprivilegesofmarriageconsistentlywiththe

fundamentalrightsanddutiesofmarriage,justastheyhave compelling reasons to leave those fundamentalrightsanddutiesinplace.

Alabama, like Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, andTennessee, has chosen to affirm the millennia-oldinstitutionofmarriagebypreservingthefundamentalrightsanddutiesofnaturalmarriageandshapingtheprivilegesofmarriagearoundmarriage.ThechoiceofthoseStatestopreservemarriageandcodifyitinlawisgroundedintheStates’compellingintereststosecuretherightsofchildrentobeconnectedtotheirbiologicalparents, topreservedistinctofficesformothersandfathers,andtoincentivizeandharnessthebenefitsofkinshipaltruism.

Preservation of marriage in law reflects anunderstanding of marriage as a unique form ofsociability with its own intrinsic and instrumentalgoods.SeeSherifGirgis,RyanT.Anderson,andRobertP.George,What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A

Defense (2012); Patrick Lee and Robert P. George,Conjugal Union: What Marriage is and Why itMatters (2014).


36/47

24

It alsoreflectstheinstrumentalvalueofmarriageforharnessingkinshipaltruism,“thecarethatnaturalparentsareinclinedtogivetotheirchildrenbecausetheyhavelaboredtogivethembirthandhavecometorecognizethemasapartofthemselvesthatshouldbepreservedandextended.”DonBrowningandElizabethMarquardt, “What About the Children? LiberalCautions on Same-Sex Marriage,”inTheMeaningofMarriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals 36

(Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain, eds.,2006).Parentshavea“fundamentallibertyinterest”todirecttheupbringingoftheirchildreninpartbecausetheyhaveboththe“highduty”andtheinclinationtoraisetheirchildrenwell.Troxel v. Granville,530U.S.57,65(2000),quotingPierce v. Society of Sisters,268U.S. 510, 535 (1925). The presumptions of parentalcustody and authority rest on the recognition “thatnaturalbondsofaffectionleadparentstoactinthebestinterestsoftheirchildren.” Parham v. J.R.,442U.S.584,602(1979).This isnottosuggest thatsame-sexcouples cannot be good parents, only that childrenshould not be deprived of legal recognition of theirnaturalparents.

MassachusettsandStateslikeitusemarriagelawtopromoteaverydifferentconceptionofmarriagethattakessidesonthemoralquestionofwhatmarriageis. A narrow majority of the justices of the SupremeJudicial Court of Massachusetts chose to redefinemarriage in order to express moral approval of the

sexualconductofsomeadults. Goodridge v. Dept. ofPublic Health,798N.E.2d941(Mass.2003);Opinionsof the Justices to the Senate,802N.E.2d565(Mass.


37/47

25

2004).Thepurposeofmarriage,thecourtasserted,istopromote “stable, exclusive relationships” betweensexually-intimateadults.Goodridge,798N.E.2dat969.ForamajorityoftheMassachusettshighcourt,itwasnot enough for the Commonwealth toremove moralstigma from same-sex intimacy. Massachusettsmarriage law could not stop short of extending tointimate same-sex couples the approbation that lawaccords to the unique achievement of marital

monogamy.ThispromptedJusticeSosmantoobjecttothe “dogmatic tenor” of the majority’s opinion.Opinions of the Justices,802N.E.2dat579n.5(SosmanJ.,dissenting).

Strikingly,Statesthathaveeliminatedtheancient,conjugal definition of marriage from law have notreplaced it with any particular definition, or even alimitingprinciple.Ifmarriageisnottheunionofamanandawoman,thenwhatisit?Ifsame-sexcouplesaremarriedinsomemeaningfulsense,thenwhatsenseisthereindenyingthatsame-sextrios,quartets,orlargergroups are married? For that matter, why mustmarriageinvolvesexatall?Anypersonwholovesandprovidescareforanotherpersonorgroupofpersonshasthesamedignityasanyothergroupofpersonsanddeservesthesamebenefitsthatareofferedtomarriedcouples.Withoutsomenewaccountofwhatmarriageis,there is no reason in justice to deny the status ofmarriagetoanygroupofpeople.

Thisleavestheincidentsofmarriageinaparlousposition. Without any guiding or limitingprinciple—without any account of what marriage


38/47

26

is—States such asMassachusetts that have tried toeliminatethedistinction betweenmarriageandnon-marriage,leavetheincidentsofmarriagesuspendedarbitrarilyinmid-air.

B. Alabama and States like itexercise their sovereignty toaffirmmarriageandthebiologicalfamilythatarisesfromit;thisisa

compellingstateinterest.

States have the power to distinguish betweendifferent forms of human sociability because Statesmustbeabletoidentifythemandtodistinguishthemfromeachother.“‘Alegislaturemusthavesubstantiallatitude to establish classifications,’ and thereforedetermining‘what isdifferentandwhat isthe same’ordinarilyisamatteroflegislativediscretion.”Lewis v.Harris,908A.2d196,222(N.J.2006),quotingPlyler v.Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). If States cannot usedifferent terms to identify objectively-differentrelationsandinstitutions,thentheverypossibilityoflawmakingisinjeopardy.Toeliminatefromlawthedistinctionbetweenmaritalandnon-maritalrelationsistoleave the legaldefinitionof marriagewithoutanydeterminatemeaning.ItistodeprivetheStatesoftheirabilitytodistinguishinlawbetweenrelationshipsthat are different in biological fact, and which haveradicallydifferentconsequencesforstatepolicy.

Wordsmatterinlawbecausetheyarethemeansby whichlawscommunicatenormativepropositions,suchasfundamentalrightsandduties.Theword“marriage”


39/47

27

mattersbecauseitpicksoutaparticulartypeofhumansociabilitythathasitsowncomplexofgoodsthatnootherhumanrelationshipcanfullyreplicate.Thoughsame-sexrelationships, caregivingrelationships,andothergroupsofpeoplecontainsomeofthegoodsofmarital friendship,none containsall of the goodsofmarriage.Marriageissui generis.

Maritalunionsareinherentlydifferentfromgroups

comprised of only one sex, and the distinctives ofmarriage are closely linked to the marital norms offidelity and permanence, Sherif Girgis, Windsor:Lochnerizing on Marriage?,64CaseWesternReserveLaw Review, 971, 1001-04 (2014), to the legal andcultural bondsbetween children and theirbiologicalparents,id.at992,1007-13,andthereby,tothewellbeingofchildrenandtheStatesinwhichchildrenlive.ThisistheconceptionofmarriagethatAlabamaandsimilarStateshaveendorsedintheirlaws.

Inordertoexercisetheirconstitutionally-retainedpowers, Statesmust be able todistinguish betweenmarriageandotherrelationsthatarelikemarriageinsome ways but not in others. To leverage differentformsofhumansociabilitytoservepublicends,Statesmust have the authority to distinguish betweendifferent types of relationships by name. Adam J.MacLeod,The Search for Moral Neutrality in Same-Sex Marriage Decisions,23BYUJournalofPublicLaw1,54-58(2008).Differentformsofhuman sociability

producedifferent goods. Amarriage, a friendship,abusinesspartnership,atennismatch,andasame-sex


40/47

28

friendship all have different natures and differentimplicationsforthecommongoodofasociety.

OnlythoseStatesthatreservethename“marriage”forunionsthataremaritalinfactareabletomakeclearthe unique importance and fundamental rights anddutiesofthefather-mother-childrelationship.ToforceStates to redefine marriage is to obscure the non-fungiblevalueofmother and father and thereby, to

deprivethemandtheirpeopleoftheircollectivechoicesabouthowtostructuresociety.If,asseveralinferiorcourtshaveconcluded,itisnotrationaltobelievethatmotherandfatherareeachuniquelyimportant,thenitshouldnotsurpriseusifpeoplestopadmittingthattheybelievethatmotherandfatherareimportant,orstopactuallybelievingthatmotherandfatherareimportant,orstopencouragingeachothertoactasthoughmotherand father are important. Whenmarriageand birthcertificatesnolongerdesignate“husband”and“wife,”“father”and“mother,”peoplemightwellinternalizethemessage that the State does not consider thosedesignationsimportant.

The message that fathers and mothers are notuniquelyimportantisalreadybeingcommunicatedin Alabama, where some officials are obscuring thedistinctionsbetweenfathersandmothersinordertosatisfythedemandsofasingleUnitedStatesDistrictCourt judge who declared Alabama’s marriage lawsirrationalandunconstitutionalinSearcy v. Strange.In

responsetothatruling, theAlabamaDepartmentofPublicHealthannouncedthatitwouldeliminatefrommarriageandbirthformsthedesignationsofbrideand


41/47

29

3groom,fatherandmother. Themessageisclear:Ifamarriagehappenstoinvolveamanandwoman,ifachildhappenstohavebothafatherandamother,thenthatisnoneoftheState’sbusiness.TheStatewillnotrecognizeorkeeprecordsofthedistinctionsbetweenfather and mother.Byeliminating the categories ofhusbandandwife,fatherandmother,fromtheannalsoffuturestatehistory,thisagencyishelpingtoensurethatchildrenwillnolongerhavetherighttohaveboth

fatherandmotherrecognizedbytheState.

Thereareothercostsoftryingtoeliminategender-based marital distinctions from law. In its so-farunsuccessfulattempttomakeman-manandwoman- womanrelationsequaltomarriage,Massachusettshasforced CatholicCharities tostop placing children inadoptions.4 A private, religious college thatdistinguishesbetweenmarriageandnon-marriagehas

5beenthreatenedwithlossofaccreditation. TheSisters

3 WSFANews,ALHealthDept.UpdatingMarriageFormsin WakeofGayMarriageRuling(February5,2015),availableathttp://www.wsfa.com/story/28034821/al-health-dept-updating marriage-forms-in-wake-of-gay-marriage-ruling4 TheBostonGlobe,Catholic Charities Stuns State, Ends Adoptions (March11,2006),availableathttp://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catho lic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/(lastvisitedJanuary30,2015).5 TheBostonGlobe, Accrediting Agency to Review GordonCollege (July11,2014),availableat

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency review-whether-gordon-college-antigay-stance-policies violate-accreditingstandards/Cti63s3A4cEHLGMPRQ5NyJ/story.html(last

http://www.wsfa.com/story/28034821/al-health-dept-updatinghttp://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/cathohttp://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agencyhttp://www.wsfa.com/story/28034821/al-health-dept-updatinghttp://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/cathohttp://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency


42/47

30

ofSt.JosephofBoston,anorderofnunswhichoperatesa parochial school, has been forced to defend itselfagainst a complaint filed at the MassachusettsCommissionAgainstDiscriminationforactingonitsreligious conviction that marriage is a man-woman

6union. Intheseandotherways,witnesstotherealityofmarriageisbeingexcludedfrompubliclife.

Ona complicatedand controversial issuesuch as

this, with no clear warrant in the Constitution forimposingoneState’sdefinitionofmarriageonanother,thefederaljudiciaryhasadutynottodoso.AsthisCourt stated last term, the people of the sovereignStates have a “fundamental right” that is “held incommon,”theright“tospeakanddebateandlearnandthen,asamatterofpoliticalwill,toactthroughalawfulelectoral process.” Schuette v. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action,134S.Ct.1623,1637(2014).And“[t]hat process is impeded, not advanced, by courtdecreesbasedonthepropositionthatthepubliccannothavetherequisitereposetodiscusscertainissues.Itisdemeaningtothedemocraticprocesstopresumethatthevotersarenotcapableofdecidinganissueofthissensitivityondecentandrationalgrounds.”Id.

visitedJanuary30,2015).6 TheBostonGlobe,Gay Married Man Says Catholic

School Rescinded Job Offer (January30,2014),availableat

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/29/dorchester

man-files-discrimination-against-catholic-school-says-lost job-because-was-gaymarried/0KswVITMsOrruEbhsOsOeN/story.html(last

visitedJanuary30,2015).

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/29/dorchesterhttp://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/29/dorchester


43/47

31

C. No morally-neutral reason, noconstitutional doctrine, providesany basis to prefer the laws ofMassachusetts to those of Alabama.

BecausethedisputeamongtheStatesconcernsthenatureofmarriage,thereisnomorally-neutralgroundupon which to decide which relationships should be

calledmarriages.TheCourtshoulddefertotheStates’ various resolutions of the question lest the Courtoverstep its role asa credible institutionof law and judgment. The only way for this Court to remainneutral on this important and contentious publicquestionis toaffirm.See MatthewB. O’Brien,WhyLiberal Neutrality Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage:Rawls, Political Liberalism, and the Family,1BritishJournal of American Legal Studies 411 (2012). ToreversetheSixthCircuit,thisCourtwouldactasaninstitutionofmoralpreferenceandlegislativewill.

ThedisagreementamongtheStatesconcernsthequestionwhatmarriageis.Thatisamoral,notalegalquestion. There is no neutral ground of equalprotection on which to decide in Petitioners’ favorbecausethisisnotadisputeaboutwhoispermittedtomarry.Itisthestructureandnatureoftherelationship,notthecharacteristicsofanyindividualmemberofthecouple,thatmakesagroupmarital(ornot).Lawsthatdistinguishbetweenmarriageandnon-marriage,such

asAlabama’s,make“nothinghingeonorientation—realor imagined, assumed or avowed.” Girgis, Windsor:


44/47

32

Lochnerizing on Marriage?,64CaseWesternReserveLawReview,at984-85.

Alabama’sdefinition ofmarriagedoes notturnonmotivations or sexual desires. It is structured todistinguish between marital and non-maritalrelationships.Amanandawomanwhoarebisexualorsame-sexattractedandwhomarryforconvenience,ortohavechildren,ortosatisfyreligiousconvictions,or

foranyotherreasonaremarriedunderAlabamalaw.Twoheterosexual-orientedmen(ortwowomen)whoseekamarriagelicenseonlytoobtainmaritalprivilegesandbenefitswillbedeniedamarriagelicenseunder Alabamalaw,not because theyareheterosexualbutbecausetheyarebothofthesamegender.Threeormorepeopleofwhateversexualorientationwillalsobedeniedamarriagelicense.Alabamalawdrawslinesonthebasisofthestructureoftherelationship—conjugalunion(marriage)ornot(notamarriage)—andignoresthemotivationsandsexualproclivitiesofthepartiestotheunion.NordoAlabama’smarriagelawsdrawaline with heterosexual relationships on one side andhomosexual relationships on the other. Same-sexcouplingsarenottheonlyrelationshipsexcludedfromthedefinitionofmarriage.Allnon-maritalrelationsareexcluded.

NeithertheConstitutionnoranyotherlawrequiresthisCourttoimposeAlabama’sconceptionofmarriageonMassachusettsorviceversa.WhatthePetitioners

seek“isnottheprotectionofadeeplyrootedrightbuttherecognitionofaverynewright,”withnogroundinhistory,tradition,ortheConstitution.United States v.


45/47


46/47

34

not,andwhethersame-sexormixed.Noristhereanyreasontoretainincestprohibitionsandotherincidentsofmarriagethatpresupposerealmarriage.Whereonecandiscernno“objectiveandworkablestandard”forchoosing a benchmark by which to evaluate aspecificationofstatelaw,thereisnogroundonwhichtochallengetheState’schosenspecification. Holder v.Hall,512U.S.874,881(1994).UnlessthePetitionershaveapreciseanswertothequestionwhatmarriageis,

andareabletoarticulatelimitingprinciplesfortheirnew definition, they are asking this Court tocreatesomethingoutofnothing.

Perhaps,assomescholarshavesuggested,marriage willnolongerbeaunitaryinstitution,valid(ornot)forall purposes, but instead States will differentiateincidents for different marriage institutions. LarryKramer,Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, andthe Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 YaleL.J.1965,1971(1997);MacLeod,The Search for

Moral Neutrality, 23 BYU J. Public Law at 54-58; WilliamBaude,Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law inFederal Statutes,64StanfordL.Rev.1371,1390(2012).This Court can preserve its special authority as aneutralinstitutionofjudgment,andnotwill,byallowingthe States to sort out the incidents of these newmarriageinstitutions.

CONCLUSION

Amicus Curiae GovernorRobertJ.BentleyurgestheCourttoaffirmthedecisionbelowoftheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuit,andtherebyoverrule


47/47

35

thecontrarydecisionsoftheU.S.CourtsofAppealsfortheFourth,Seventh,Ninth,andTenthCircuits.

Respectfullysubmittedthis17thdayofMarch,2015.

AlgertS.Agricola,Jr.**Counsel of Record

OFCOUNSEL:

R YALS,DONALDSON&A GRICOLA ,P.C.60CommerceStreet,Suite1400Montgomery,AL36104(334)834-5290P(334)[email protected]

DavidB.Byrne,Jr.LegalAdvisortotheGovernorOFFICEOFTHEGOVERNOR

AlabamaStateCapitol600DexterAvenue, SuiteNB-05Montgomery,AL36130(334)242-7120P(334)[email protected]@governor.alabama.gov

AdamJ.MacLeod5345AtlantaHighway

Montgomery,AL36109(334)[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

14-556 bentley gov of al

Documents