Timothy Bostic v. George Schaefer ( 2014 )

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1167
TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC; TONY C. LONDON; CAROL SCHALL; MARY
TOWNLEY,
Plaintiffs − Appellees,
JOANNE HARRIS; JESSICA DUFF; CHRISTY BERGHOFF; VICTORIA
KIDD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Intervenors,
v.
GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, III, in his official capacity as the
Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
JANET M. RAINEY, in her official capacity as State Registrar
of Vital Records; ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, in his official
capacity as Governor of Virginia; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II,
in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia,
Defendants,
MICHÈLE MCQUIGG,
Intervenor/Defendant.
------------------------------------
DAVID A. ROBINSON; ALAN J. HAWKINS; JASON S. CARROLL; NORTH
CAROLINA VALUES COALITION; LIBERTY, LIFE, AND LAW
FOUNDATION; SOCIAL SCIENCE PROFESSORS; FAMILY RESEARCH
COUNCIL; VIRGINIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, LLC; CENTER FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC POLICY; HELEN M. ALVARE;
STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE
OF ARIZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF
LOUISIANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMING; WALLBUILDERS, LLC; LIBERTY
COUNSEL; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS; SCHOLARS OF
HISTORY AND RELATED DISCIPLINES; AMERICAN LEADERSHIP FUND;
ROBERT P. GEORGE; SHERIF GIRGIS; RYAN T. ANDERSON; PAUL
MCHUGH; UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS; CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS; THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION; LUTHERAN
CHURCH−MISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVID
BOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA; THE
FAMILY FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA,
Amici Supporting Appellant,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEE
BOLLINGER; ERWIN CHEMERINSKY; WALTER DELLINGER; MICHAEL C.
DORF; LEE EPSTEIN; DANIEL FARBER; BARRY FRIEDMAN; MICHAEL
JAY GERHARDT, Professor; DEBORAH HELLMAN; JOHN CALVIN
JEFFRIES, JR.; LAWRENCE LESSIG; WILLIAM MARSHALL; FRANK
MICHELMAN; JANE S. SCHACTER; CHRISTOPHER H. SCHROEDER;
SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVID STRAUSS; LAURENCE
H. TRIBE, Professor; WILLIAM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVE−SLDN; THE
AMERICAN MILITARY PARTNER ASSOCIATION; THE AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROFESSORS; AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS; AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS; VIRGINIA
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; EQUALITY NC; SOUTH CAROLINA
QUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHER−BORNE; MARCIE
FISHER−BORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARIGNAN;
MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLIE ZANAGLIO; LEE KNIGHT
CAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAIG JOHNSON; ESMERALDA
MEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTER−MEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER; HISTORIANS OF
MARRIAGE; PETER W. BARDAGLIO; NORMA BASCH; STEPHANIE COONTZ;
NANCY F. COTT; TOBY L. DITZ; ARIELA R. DUBLER; LAURA F.
EDWARDS; SARAH BARRINGER GORDON; MICHAEL GROSSBERG; HENDRIK
HARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LINDA K. KERBER; ALICE
KESSLER−HARRIS; ELAINE TYLER MAY; SERENA MAYERI; STEVEN
MINTZ; ELIZABETH PLECK; CAROLE SHAMMAS; MARY L. SHANLEY; AMY
DRU STANLEY; BARBARA WELKE; PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF
2
LESBIANS AND GAYS, INC.; KERRY ABRAMS, Albert Clark Tate,
Jr. Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law;
VIVIAN HAMILTON, Professor of Law, William and Mary;
MEREDITH HARBACH, Professor of Law, University of Richmond;
JOAN HEIFETZ HOLLINGER, John and Elizabeth Boalt Lecturer in
Residence, University of California, Berkeley School of Law;
COURTNEY G. JOSLIN, Professor of Law, University of
California, Davis School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC; FAMILY EQUALITY COUNCIL; COLAGE;
GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ADVANCING LGBT EQUALITY; WILLIAM
N. ESKRIDGE, JR.; REBECCA L. BROWN; DANIEL A. FARBER;
MICHAEL GERHARDT; JACK KNIGHT; ANDREW KOPPELMAN; MELISSA
LAMB SAUNDERS; NEIL S. SIEGEL; JANA B. SINGER; HISTORIANS OF
ANTI−GAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTI−DEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS
UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: A
JEWISH PARTNERSHIP FOR JUSTICE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN'S
ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA; HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION;
THE INTERFAITH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION; JAPANESE AMERICAN
CITIZENS LEAGUE; JEWISH SOCIAL POLICY ACTION NETWORK;
KESHET; METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES; MORE LIGHT
PRESBYTERIANS; THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN;
NEHIRIM; PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION;
PRESBYTERIAN WELCOME; RECONCILINGWORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULL
PARTICIPATION; RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.; SIKH AMERICAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND; SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC
JUDAISM; T'RUAH: THE RABBINIC CALL FOR HUMAN RIGHTS; WOMEN'S
LEAGUE FOR CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM; COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL
SEXUALITY AND GENDER LAW CLINIC; BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL
CHURCH IN VIRGINIA; CENTRAL ATLANTIC CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN
RABBIS; MORMONS FOR EQUALITY; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL
ASSOCIATION; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL COLLEGE AND JEWISH
RECONSTRUCTIONIST COMMUNITIES; UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM; THE
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION; AFFIRMATION; COVENANT
NETWORK OF PRESBYTERIANS; METHODIST FEDERATION FOR SOCIAL
ACTION; MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS; PRESBYTERIAN WELCOME;
RECONCILING MINISTRIES NETWORK; RECONCILINGWORKS: LUTHERANS
FOR FULL PARTICIPATION; RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.; WOMEN OF
REFORM JUDAISM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING
EMPLOYERS; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF IOWA; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF
MARYLAND; STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE
OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF
WASHINGTON; GARY J. GATES; NATIONAL AND WESTERN STATES
3
WOMEN'S RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS; VIRGINIA CHAPTER OF THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS; THE NATIONAL
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS; NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES; SOUTHWEST WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; WOMEN'S
LAW PROJECT; PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCIATED WITH THE WILLIAMS
INSTITUTE; BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM;
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS; PUBLIC
INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS; BAR ASSOCIATIONS; FAMILY LAW AND
CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSORS; GAY AND LESBIAN ADVOCATES AND
DEFENDERS; PEOPLE OF FAITH FOR EQUALITY IN VIRGINIA;
CELEBRATION CENTER FOR SPIRITUAL LIVING; CLARENDON
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; COMMONWEALTH BAPTIST CHURCH;
CONGREGATION OR AMI; HOPE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; LITTLE
RIVER UCC; METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF NORTHERN
VIRGINIA; MT. VERNON UNITARIAN CHURCH; ST. JAMES UCC,; ST.
JOHN'S UCC; NEW LIFE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH;
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP OF THE PENINSULA;
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF STERLING; UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST OF FREDERICKSBURG; UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
CHURCH OF LOUDOUN; ANDREW MERTZ; REV. MARIE HULM ADAM; REV.
MARTY ANDERSON; REV ROBIN ANDERSON; REV. VERNE ARENS; RABBI
LIA BASS; REV. JOSEPH G. BEATTIE; REV. SUE BROWNING; REV.
JIM BUNDY; REV. MARK BYRD; REV. STEVEN C. CLUNN; REV. DR.
JOHN COPERHAVER; RABBI GARY CREDITOR; REV. DAVID ENSIGN;
REV. HENRY FAIRMAN; RABBI JESSE GALLOP; REV. TOM
GERSTENLAUER; REV. ROBIN H. GORSLINE; REV. TRISH HALL; REV.
WARREN HAMMONDS; REV. JON HEASLET; REV. DOUGLAS HODGES; REV.
PHYLLIS HUBBELL; REV. STEPHEN G. HYDE; REV. JANET JAMES;
REV. JOHN MANWELL; REV. JAMES W. MCNEAL; REV. MARC BOSWELL;
REV. ANDREW CLIVE MILLARD; REV. DR. MELANIE MILLER; REV.
AMBER NEUROTH; REV. JAMES PAPILE; REV. LINDA OLSON PEEBLES;
REV. DON PRANGE; RABBI MICHAEL RAGOZIN; RABBI BEN ROMER;
REV. JENNIFER RYU; REV. ANYA SAMMLER−MICHAEL; REV. AMY
SCHWARTZMAN; REV. DANNY SPEARS; REV. MARK SURIANO; REV. ROB
VAUGHN; REV. DANIEL VELEZ−RIVERA; REV. KATE R. WALKER; REV.
TERRYE WILLIAMS; REV. DR. KAREN−MARIE YUST,
Amici Supporting Appellees.
4
No. 14-1169
TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC; TONY C. LONDON; CAROL SCHALL; MARY
TOWNLEY,
Plaintiffs − Appellees,
JOANNE HARRIS; JESSICA DUFF; CHRISTY BERGHOFF; VICTORIA
KIDD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Intervenors,
v.
JANET M. RAINEY, in her official capacity as State Registrar
of Vital Records,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, III, in his official capacity as the
Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court; ROBERT F.
MCDONNELL, in his official capacity as Governor of Virginia;
KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of Virginia,
Defendants,
MICHÈLE MCQUIGG,
Intervenor/Defendant.
------------------------------------
DAVID A. ROBINSON; ALAN J. HAWKINS; JASON S. CARROLL; NORTH
CAROLINA VALUES COALITION; LIBERTY, LIFE, AND LAW
FOUNDATION; SOCIAL SCIENCE PROFESSORS; FAMILY RESEARCH
COUNCIL; VIRGINIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, LLC; CENTER FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC POLICY; HELEN M. ALVARE;
STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE
OF ARIZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF
5
LOUISIANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMING; WALLBUILDERS, LLC; LIBERTY
COUNSEL; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS; SCHOLARS OF
HISTORY AND RELATED DISCIPLINES; AMERICAN LEADERSHIP FUND;
ROBERT P. GEORGE; SHERIF GIRGIS; RYAN T. ANDERSON; PAUL
MCHUGH; UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS; CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS; THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION; LUTHERAN
CHURCH−MISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVID
BOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA; THE
FAMILY FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA,
Amici Supporting Appellant,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEE
BOLLINGER; ERWIN CHEMERINSKY; WALTER DELLINGER; MICHAEL C.
DORF; LEE EPSTEIN; DANIEL FARBER; BARRY FRIEDMAN; MICHAEL
JAY GERHARDT, Professor; DEBORAH HELLMAN; JOHN CALVIN
JEFFRIES, JR.; LAWRENCE LESSIG; WILLIAM MARSHALL; FRANK
MICHELMAN; JANE S. SCHACTER; CHRISTOPHER H. SCHROEDER;
SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVID STRAUSS; LAURENCE
H. TRIBE, Professor; WILLIAM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVE−SLDN; THE
AMERICAN MILITARY PARTNER ASSOCIATION; THE AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROFESSORS; AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS; AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS; VIRGINIA
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; EQUALITY NC; SOUTH CAROLINA
QUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHER−BORNE; MARCIE
FISHER−BORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARIGNAN;
MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLIE ZANAGLIO; LEE KNIGHT
CAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAIG JOHNSON; ESMERALDA
MEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTER−MEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER; HISTORIANS OF
MARRIAGE; PETER W. BARDAGLIO; NORMA BASCH; STEPHANIE COONTZ;
NANCY F. COTT; TOBY L. DITZ; ARIELA R. DUBLER; LAURA F.
EDWARDS; SARAH BARRINGER GORDON; MICHAEL GROSSBERG; HENDRIK
HARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LINDA K. KERBER; ALICE
KESSLER−HARRIS; ELAINE TYLER MAY; SERENA MAYERI; STEVEN
MINTZ; ELIZABETH PLECK; CAROLE SHAMMAS; MARY L. SHANLEY; AMY
DRU STANLEY; BARBARA WELKE; PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF
LESBIANS AND GAYS, INC.; KERRY ABRAMS, Albert Clark Tate,
Jr. Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law;
VIVIAN HAMILTON, Professor of Law, William and Mary;
6
MEREDITH HARBACH, Professor of Law, University of Richmond;
JOAN HEIFETZ HOLLINGER, John and Elizabeth Boalt Lecturer in
Residence, University of California, Berkeley School of Law;
COURTNEY G. JOSLIN, Professor of Law, University of
California, Davis School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC; FAMILY EQUALITY COUNCIL; COLAGE;
GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ADVANCING LGBT EQUALITY; WILLIAM
N. ESKRIDGE, JR.; REBECCA L. BROWN; DANIEL A. FARBER;
MICHAEL GERHARDT; JACK KNIGHT; ANDREW KOPPELMAN; MELISSA
LAMB SAUNDERS; NEIL S. SIEGEL; JANA B. SINGER; HISTORIANS OF
ANTI−GAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTI−DEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS
UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: A
JEWISH PARTNERSHIP FOR JUSTICE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN'S
ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA; HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION;
THE INTERFAITH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION; JAPANESE AMERICAN
CITIZENS LEAGUE; JEWISH SOCIAL POLICY ACTION NETWORK;
KESHET; METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES; MORE LIGHT
PRESBYTERIANS; THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN;
NEHIRIM; PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION;
PRESBYTERIAN WELCOME; RECONCILINGWORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULL
PARTICIPATION; RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.; SIKH AMERICAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND; SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC
JUDAISM; T'RUAH: THE RABBINIC CALL FOR HUMAN RIGHTS; WOMEN'S
LEAGUE FOR CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM; COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL
SEXUALITY AND GENDER LAW CLINIC; BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL
CHURCH IN VIRGINIA; CENTRAL ATLANTIC CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN
RABBIS; MORMONS FOR EQUALITY; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL
ASSOCIATION; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL COLLEGE AND JEWISH
RECONSTRUCTIONIST COMMUNITIES; UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM; THE
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION; AFFIRMATION; COVENANT
NETWORK OF PRESBYTERIANS; METHODIST FEDERATION FOR SOCIAL
ACTION; MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS; PRESBYTERIAN WELCOME;
RECONCILING MINISTRIES NETWORK; RECONCILINGWORKS: LUTHERANS
FOR FULL PARTICIPATION; RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.; WOMEN OF
REFORM JUDAISM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING
EMPLOYERS; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF IOWA; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF
MARYLAND; STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE
OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF
WASHINGTON; GARY J. GATES; NATIONAL AND WESTERN STATES
WOMEN'S RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS; VIRGINIA CHAPTER OF THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS; THE NATIONAL
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;
7
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS; NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES; SOUTHWEST WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; WOMEN'S
LAW PROJECT; PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCIATED WITH THE WILLIAMS
INSTITUTE; BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM;
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS; PUBLIC
INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS; BAR ASSOCIATIONS; FAMILY LAW AND
CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSORS; GAY AND LESBIAN ADVOCATES AND
DEFENDERS; PEOPLE OF FAITH FOR EQUALITY IN VIRGINIA;
CELEBRATION CENTER FOR SPIRITUAL LIVING; CLARENDON
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; COMMONWEALTH BAPTIST CHURCH;
CONGREGATION OR AMI; HOPE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; LITTLE
RIVER UCC; METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF NORTHERN
VIRGINIA; MT. VERNON UNITARIAN CHURCH; ST. JAMES UCC,; ST.
JOHN'S UCC; NEW LIFE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH;
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP OF THE PENINSULA;
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF STERLING; UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST OF FREDERICKSBURG; UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
CHURCH OF LOUDOUN; ANDREW MERTZ; REV. MARIE HULM ADAM; REV.
MARTY ANDERSON; REV ROBIN ANDERSON; REV. VERNE ARENS; RABBI
LIA BASS; REV. JOSEPH G. BEATTIE; REV. SUE BROWNING; REV.
JIM BUNDY; REV. MARK BYRD; REV. STEVEN C. CLUNN; REV. DR.
JOHN COPERHAVER; RABBI GARY CREDITOR; REV. DAVID ENSIGN;
REV. HENRY FAIRMAN; RABBI JESSE GALLOP; REV. TOM
GERSTENLAUER; REV. ROBIN H. GORSLINE; REV. TRISH HALL; REV.
WARREN HAMMONDS; REV. JON HEASLET; REV. DOUGLAS HODGES; REV.
PHYLLIS HUBBELL; REV. STEPHEN G. HYDE; REV. JANET JAMES;
REV. JOHN MANWELL; REV. JAMES W. MCNEAL; REV. MARC BOSWELL;
REV. ANDREW CLIVE MILLARD; REV. DR. MELANIE MILLER; REV.
AMBER NEUROTH; REV. JAMES PAPILE; REV. LINDA OLSON PEEBLES;
REV. DON PRANGE; RABBI MICHAEL RAGOZIN; RABBI BEN ROMER;
REV. JENNIFER RYU; REV. ANYA SAMMLER−MICHAEL; REV. AMY
SCHWARTZMAN; REV. DANNY SPEARS; REV. MARK SURIANO; REV. ROB
VAUGHN; REV. DANIEL VELEZ−RIVERA; REV. KATE R. WALKER; REV.
TERRYE WILLIAMS; REV. DR. KAREN−MARIE YUST,
Amici Supporting Appellees.
8
No. 14-1173
TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC; TONY C. LONDON; CAROL SCHALL; MARY
TOWNLEY,
Plaintiffs − Appellees,
JOANNE HARRIS; JESSICA DUFF; CHRISTY BERGHOFF; VICTORIA
KIDD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Intervenors,
v.
MICHÈLE MCQUIGG,
Intervenor/Defendant – Appellant,
and
GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, III, in his official capacity as the
Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court; JANET M. RAINEY,
in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital
Records; ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, in his official capacity as
Governor of Virginia; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia,
Defendants.
------------------------------------
DAVID A. ROBINSON; ALAN J. HAWKINS; JASON S. CARROLL; NORTH
CAROLINA VALUES COALITION; LIBERTY, LIFE, AND LAW
FOUNDATION; SOCIAL SCIENCE PROFESSORS; FAMILY RESEARCH
COUNCIL; VIRGINIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, LLC; CENTER FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC POLICY; HELEN M. ALVARE;
STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE
OF ARIZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF
LOUISIANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WYOMING; WALLBUILDERS, LLC; LIBERTY
COUNSEL; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS; SCHOLARS OF
9
HISTORY AND RELATED DISCIPLINES; AMERICAN LEADERSHIP FUND;
ROBERT P. GEORGE; SHERIF GIRGIS; RYAN T. ANDERSON; PAUL
MCHUGH; UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS; CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS; THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION; LUTHERAN
CHURCH−MISSOURI SYNOD; THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; DAVID
BOYLE; ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ; CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA; THE
FAMILY FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA,
Amici Supporting Appellant,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS; ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT; LEE
BOLLINGER; ERWIN CHEMERINSKY; WALTER DELLINGER; MICHAEL C.
DORF; LEE EPSTEIN; DANIEL FARBER; BARRY FRIEDMAN; MICHAEL
JAY GERHARDT, Professor; DEBORAH HELLMAN; JOHN CALVIN
JEFFRIES, JR.; LAWRENCE LESSIG; WILLIAM MARSHALL; FRANK
MICHELMAN; JANE S. SCHACTER; CHRISTOPHER H. SCHROEDER;
SUZANNA SHERRY; GEOFFREY R. STONE; DAVID STRAUSS; LAURENCE
H. TRIBE, Professor; WILLIAM VAN ALSTYNE; OUTSERVE−SLDN; THE
AMERICAN MILITARY PARTNER ASSOCIATION; THE AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROFESSORS; AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS; AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS; VIRGINIA
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; EQUALITY NC; SOUTH CAROLINA
QUALITY COALITION; CHANTELLE FISHER−BORNE; MARCIE
FISHER−BORNE; CRYSTAL HENDRIX; LEIGH SMITH; SHANA CARIGNAN;
MEGAN PARKER; TERRI BECK; LESLIE ZANAGLIO; LEE KNIGHT
CAFFERY; DANA DRAA; SHAWN LONG; CRAIG JOHNSON; ESMERALDA
MEJIA; CHRISTINA GINTER−MEJIA; CATO INSTITUTE;
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER; HISTORIANS OF
MARRIAGE; PETER W. BARDAGLIO; NORMA BASCH; STEPHANIE COONTZ;
NANCY F. COTT; TOBY L. DITZ; ARIELA R. DUBLER; LAURA F.
EDWARDS; SARAH BARRINGER GORDON; MICHAEL GROSSBERG; HENDRIK
HARTOG; ELLEN HERMAN; MARTHA HODES; LINDA K. KERBER; ALICE
KESSLER−HARRIS; ELAINE TYLER MAY; SERENA MAYERI; STEVEN
MINTZ; ELIZABETH PLECK; CAROLE SHAMMAS; MARY L. SHANLEY; AMY
DRU STANLEY; BARBARA WELKE; PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF
LESBIANS AND GAYS, INC.; KERRY ABRAMS, Albert Clark Tate,
Jr. Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law;
VIVIAN HAMILTON, Professor of Law, William and Mary;
MEREDITH HARBACH, Professor of Law, University of Richmond;
JOAN HEIFETZ HOLLINGER, John and Elizabeth Boalt Lecturer in
Residence, University of California, Berkeley School of Law;
COURTNEY G. JOSLIN, Professor of Law, University of
10
California, Davis School of Law; NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC; FAMILY EQUALITY COUNCIL; COLAGE;
GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ADVANCING LGBT EQUALITY; WILLIAM
N. ESKRIDGE, JR.; REBECCA L. BROWN; DANIEL A. FARBER;
MICHAEL GERHARDT; JACK KNIGHT; ANDREW KOPPELMAN; MELISSA
LAMB SAUNDERS; NEIL S. SIEGEL; JANA B. SINGER; HISTORIANS OF
ANTI−GAY DISCRIMINATION; ANTI−DEFAMATION LEAGUE; AMERICANS
UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE; BEND THE ARC: A
JEWISH PARTNERSHIP FOR JUSTICE; HADASSAH, THE WOMEN'S
ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA; HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION;
THE INTERFAITH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION; JAPANESE AMERICAN
CITIZENS LEAGUE; JEWISH SOCIAL POLICY ACTION NETWORK;
KESHET; METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES; MORE LIGHT
PRESBYTERIANS; THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN;
NEHIRIM; PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION;
PRESBYTERIAN WELCOME; RECONCILINGWORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULL
PARTICIPATION; RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.; SIKH AMERICAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND; SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC
JUDAISM; T'RUAH: THE RABBINIC CALL FOR HUMAN RIGHTS; WOMEN'S
LEAGUE FOR CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM; COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL
SEXUALITY AND GENDER LAW CLINIC; BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL
CHURCH IN VIRGINIA; CENTRAL ATLANTIC CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN
RABBIS; MORMONS FOR EQUALITY; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL
ASSOCIATION; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL COLLEGE AND JEWISH
RECONSTRUCTIONIST COMMUNITIES; UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM; THE
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION; AFFIRMATION; COVENANT
NETWORK OF PRESBYTERIANS; METHODIST FEDERATION FOR SOCIAL
ACTION; MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS; PRESBYTERIAN WELCOME;
RECONCILING MINISTRIES NETWORK; RECONCILINGWORKS: LUTHERANS
FOR FULL PARTICIPATION; RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.; WOMEN OF
REFORM JUDAISM; 28 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING
EMPLOYERS; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF IOWA; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF
MARYLAND; STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE
OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF
WASHINGTON; GARY J. GATES; NATIONAL AND WESTERN STATES
WOMEN'S RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS; VIRGINIA CHAPTER OF THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS; THE NATIONAL
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES; LEGAL MOMENTUM;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS; NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES; SOUTHWEST WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; WOMEN'S
LAW PROJECT; PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCIATED WITH THE WILLIAMS
INSTITUTE; BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM;
11
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS; PUBLIC
INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS; BAR ASSOCIATIONS; FAMILY LAW AND
CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSORS; GAY AND LESBIAN ADVOCATES AND
DEFENDERS; PEOPLE OF FAITH FOR EQUALITY IN VIRGINIA;
CELEBRATION CENTER FOR SPIRITUAL LIVING; CLARENDON
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; COMMONWEALTH BAPTIST CHURCH;
CONGREGATION OR AMI; HOPE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; LITTLE
RIVER UCC; METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF NORTHERN
VIRGINIA; MT. VERNON UNITARIAN CHURCH; ST. JAMES UCC,; ST.
JOHN'S UCC; NEW LIFE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH;
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP OF THE PENINSULA;
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF STERLING; UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST OF FREDERICKSBURG; UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
CHURCH OF LOUDOUN; ANDREW MERTZ; REV. MARIE HULM ADAM; REV.
MARTY ANDERSON; REV ROBIN ANDERSON; REV. VERNE ARENS; RABBI
LIA BASS; REV. JOSEPH G. BEATTIE; REV. SUE BROWNING; REV.
JIM BUNDY; REV. MARK BYRD; REV. STEVEN C. CLUNN; REV. DR.
JOHN COPERHAVER; RABBI GARY CREDITOR; REV. DAVID ENSIGN;
REV. HENRY FAIRMAN; RABBI JESSE GALLOP; REV. TOM
GERSTENLAUER; REV. ROBIN H. GORSLINE; REV. TRISH HALL; REV.
WARREN HAMMONDS; REV. JON HEASLET; REV. DOUGLAS HODGES; REV.
PHYLLIS HUBBELL; REV. STEPHEN G. HYDE; REV. JANET JAMES;
REV. JOHN MANWELL; REV. JAMES W. MCNEAL; REV. MARC BOSWELL;
REV. ANDREW CLIVE MILLARD; REV. DR. MELANIE MILLER; REV.
AMBER NEUROTH; REV. JAMES PAPILE; REV. LINDA OLSON PEEBLES;
REV. DON PRANGE; RABBI MICHAEL RAGOZIN; RABBI BEN ROMER;
REV. JENNIFER RYU; REV. ANYA SAMMLER−MICHAEL; REV. AMY
SCHWARTZMAN; REV. DANNY SPEARS; REV. MARK SURIANO; REV. ROB
VAUGHN; REV. DANIEL VELEZ−RIVERA; REV. KATE R. WALKER; REV.
TERRYE WILLIAMS; REV. DR. KAREN−MARIE YUST,
Amici Supporting Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL)
Argued: May 13, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
12
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the majority
opinion, in which Judge Gregory joined. Judge Niemeyer wrote a
separate dissenting opinion.
ARGUED: David Brandt Oakley, POOLE MAHONEY PC, Chesapeake,
Virginia; David Austin Robert Nimocks, ALLIANCE DEFENDING
FREEDOM, Washington, D.C., for Appellants George E. Schaefer,
III and Michèle McQuigg. Stuart Alan Raphael, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant
Janet M. Rainey. Theodore B. Olson, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER,
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. James D. Esseks, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, New York, New York, for Intervenors. ON
BRIEF: Jeffrey F. Brooke, POOLE MAHONEY PC, Chesapeake,
Virginia, for Appellant George E. Schaefer, III. Byron J.
Babione, Kenneth J. Connelly, J. Caleb Dalton, ALLIANCE
DEFENDING FREEDOM, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Appellant Michèle B.
McQuigg. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Cynthia E. Hudson,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy
Attorney General, Allyson K. Tysinger, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Catherine Crooks Hill, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Trevor S. Cox, Deputy Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant
Janet M. Rainey. David Boies, Armonk, New York, William A.
Isaacson, Washington, D.C., Jeremy M. Goldman, Oakland,
California, Robert Silver, Joshua I. Schiller, BOIES, SCHILLER &
FLEXNER LLP, New York, New York; Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.,
Joshua S. Lipshutz, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Thomas B. Shuttleworth, Robert E. Ruloff, Charles B.
Lustig, Andrew M. Hendrick, Erik C. Porcaro, SHUTTLEWORTH,
RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK, P.C., Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellees. Rebecca K. Glenberg, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION, INC., Richmond,
Virginia; Joshua A. Block, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, New York, New York; Gregory R. Nevins, Tara L.
Borelli, LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC., Atlanta,
Georgia; Paul M. Smith, Luke C. Platzer, Mark P. Gaber, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Washington, D.C., for Intervenors. David A.
Robinson, North Haven, Connecticut, as Amicus. Lynn D. Wardle,
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Provo, Utah; William C.
Duncan, MARRIAGE LAW FOUNDATION, Lehi, Utah, for Amici Alan J.
Hawkins and Jason S. Carroll. Deborah J. Dewart, DEBORAH J.
DEWART, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Swansboro, North Carolina, for Amici
North Carolina Values Coalition and Liberty, Life, and Law
Foundation. Steve C. Taylor, ALLIANCE LEGAL GROUP, Chesapeake,
Virginia, for Amicus Social Science Professors. Paul Benjamin
13
Linton, Northbrook, Illinois, for Amicus Family Research
Council. John C. Eastman, Anthony T. Caso, Center for
Constitutional Jurisprudence, CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY DALE E. FOWLER
SCHOOL OF LAW, Orange, California, for Amici Virginia Catholic
Conference, LLC and Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Julie Marie Blake, Assistant
Attorney General, Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE
WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Amicus State of West Virginia. D. John Sauer, St. Louis,
Missouri, for Amicus Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
Henry P. Wall, Columbia, South Carolina, for Amicus Helen M.
Alvare. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General, Thomas M. Fisher,
Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Indianapolis,
Indiana; Luther Strange, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, Montgomery, Alabama; Michael C.
Geraghty, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
ALASKA, Juneau, Alaska; Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, Phoenix, Arizona;
John Suthers, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF COLORADO, Denver, Colorado; Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IDAHO, Boise, Idaho;
James D. "Buddy" Caldwell, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUISIANA, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Timothy
C. Fox, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MONTANA, Helena, Montana; Jon Bruning, Attorney General, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, Lincoln, Nebraska; E. Scott
Pruitt, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
OKLAHOMA, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Alan Wilson, Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina; Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Pierre, South
Dakota; Sean Reyes, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF UTAH, Salt Lake City, Utah; Peter K.
Michael, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WYOMING, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Amici States of Indiana,
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. Stephen M. Crampton, Mary E. McAlister, LIBERTY
COUNSEL, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Amicus WallBuilders, LLC.
Mathew D. Staver, Anita L. Staver, LIBERTY COUNSEL, Orlando,
Florida, for Amici Liberty Counsel and American College of
Pediatricians. Frank D. Mylar, MYLAR LAW, P.C., Salt Lake City,
Utah, for Amici Scholars of History and Related Disciplines and
American Leadership Fund. Michael F. Smith, THE SMITH APPELLATE
LAW FIRM, Washington, D.C., for Amici Robert P. George, Sherif
Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson. Gerard V. Bradley, NOTRE DAME LAW
SCHOOL, Notre Dame, Indiana; Kevin T. Snider, PACIFIC JUSTICE
14
INSTITUTE, Oakland, California, for Amicus Paul McHugh. Anthony
R. Picarello, Jr., U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS,
Washington, D.C.; R. Shawn Gunnarson, KIRTON MCCONKIE, Salt Lake
City, Utah, for Amici United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals, Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Ethics & Religious Liberty
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod. Eric Rassbach, Asma Uddin, THE BECKET
FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, Washington, D.C., for Amicus The
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Lawrence J. Joseph,
Washington, D.C. for Amicus Eagle Forum Education and Legal
Defense Fund. David Boyle, Long Beach, California, as Amicus.
David Boyle, Long Beach, California, for Amicus Robert Oscar
Lopez. Abbe David Lowell, Christopher D. Man, CHADBOURNE &
PARKE LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Outserve-SLDN and The
American Military Partner Association. Geoffrey R. Stone, THE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL, Chicago, Illinois; Lori Alvino
McGill, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici
Constitutional Law Scholars Ashutosh Bhagwat, Lee Bollinger,
Erwin Chemerinsky, Walter Dellinger, Michael C. Dorf, Lee
Epstein, Daniel Farber, Barry Friedman, Michael J. Gerhardt,
Deborah Hellman, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Lawrence Lessig, William
Marshall, Frank Michelman, Jane S. Schacter, Christopher H.
Schroeder, Suzanna Sherry, Geoffrey R. Stone, David Strauss,
Laurence H. Tribe, and William Van Alstyne. Steven W. Fitschen,
THE NATIONAL LEGAL FOUNDATION, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Holly
L. Carmichael, San Jose, California, for Amicus Concerned Women
for America. Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Mark A. Lightner, Andra
Troy, Andrew P. Meiser, CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP,
New York, New York, for Amicus The American Sociological
Association. L. Steven Emmert, SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY,
P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Amicus Virginia
Constitutional Law Professors. Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle, AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C.; Bruce V. Spiva, THE
SPIVA LAW FIRM PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Amici American
Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social
Workers, and Virginia Psychological Association. Mark
Kleinschmidt, TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina; Ryan T. Butler, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Amici
Equality NC and South Carolina Equality Coalition. Rose A.
Saxe, James D. Esseks, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, New York, New York; Garrard R. Beeney, David A.
Castleman, Catherine M. Bradley, W. Rudolph Kleysteuber,
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, New York, New York, for Amici Marcie
and Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Crystal Hendrix and Leigh Smith,
Shana Carignan and Megan Parker, Terri Beck and Leslie Zanaglio,
15
Lee Knight Caffery and Dana Draa, Shawn Long and Craig Johnson,
and Esmeralda Mejia and Christina Ginter-Mejia. Elizabeth B.
Wydra, Douglas T. Kendall, Judith E. Schaeffer, David H. Gans,
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER, Washington, D.C.; Ilya
Shapiro, CATO INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., for Amici Cato
Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center. Daniel
McNeel Lane, Jr., Matthew E. Pepping, San Antonio, Texas,
Jessica M. Weisel, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Los
Angeles, California, for Amici Historians of Marriage Peter W.
Bardaglio, Norma Basch, Stephanie Coontz, Nancy F. Cott, Toby L.
Ditz, Ariela R. Dubler, Laura F. Edwards, Sarah Barringer
Gordon, Michael Grossberg, Hendrik Hartog, Ellen Herman, Martha
Hodes, Linda K. Kerber, Alice Kessler-Harris, Elaine Tyler May,
Serena Mayeri, Steve Mintz, Elizabeth Pleck, Carole Shammas,
Mary L. Shanley, Amy Dru Stanley, and Barbara Welke. Jiyun
Cameron Lee, Andrew J. Davis, FOLGER LEVIN LLP, San Francisco,
California, for Amicus Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians
and Gays, Inc. Rita F. Lin, Laura W. Weissbein, Sara Bartel,
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amici
Kerry Abrams, Albert Clark Tate, Jr. Professor of Law University
of Virginia School of Law, Vivian Hamilton, Professor of Law
William and Mary, Meredith Harbach, Professor of Law University
of Richmond, Joan Heifetz Hollinger, John and Elizabeth Boalt
Lecturer in Residence University of California, Berkeley School
of Law, Courtney G. Joslin, Professor of Law University of
California, Davis School of Law, and Forty-Four Other Family Law
Professors. Sherrilyn Ifill, Christina A. Swarns, Ria Tabacco
Mar, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., New York, New
York; Kim M. Keenan, NAACP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amici NAACP
Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. and National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People. Aderson Bellegarde
Francois, HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC,
Washington, D.C.; Brad W. Seiling, Benjamin G. Shatz, MANATT,
PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amicus
Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic. Alec W.
Farr, Washington, D.C., Tracy M. Talbot, Katherine Keating,
BRYAN CAVE LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amici Family
Equality Council and COLAGE. Nicholas M. O'Donnell, SULLIVAN &
WORCESTER LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Amicus GLMA: Health
Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality. Kathleen M. O'Sullivan,
Mica D. Simpson, PERKINS COIE LLP, Seattle, Washington, for
Amici William N. Eskridge, Jr., Rebecca L. Brown, Daniel A.
Farber, Michael Gerhardt, Jack Knight, Andrew Koppelman, Melissa
Lamb Saunders, Neil S. Siegel, and Jana B. Singer. Catherine E.
Stetson, Erica Knievel Songer, Mary Helen Wimberly, Katie D.
Fairchild, Madeline H. Gitomer, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Amicus Historians of Antigay
16
Discrimination. Rocky C. Tsai, Samuel P. Bickett, Rebecca
Harlow, ROPES & GRAY LLP, San Francisco, California; Steven M.
Freeman, Seth M. Marnin, Melissa Garlick, ANTI-DEFAMATION
LEAGUE, New York, New York, for Amici Anti-Defamation League,
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Bend the
Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, Hadassah, The Women's
Zionist Organization of America, Hindu American Foundation, The
Interfaith Alliance Foundation, Japanese American Citizens
League, Jewish Social Policy Action Network, Keshet,
Metropolitan Community Churches, More Light Presbyterians, The
National Council of Jewish Women, Nehirim, People For the
American Way Foundation, Presbyterian Welcome, Reconcilingworks:
Lutherans for Full Participation, Religious Institute, Inc.,
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Society for
Humanistic Judaism, T'Ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights,
and Women's League For Conservative Judaism. Matthew P.
McGuire, Beverlee E. Silva, Diane S. Wizig, ALSTON & BIRD LLP,
Durham, North Carolina; Suzanne B. Goldberg, Sexuality and
Gender Law Clinic, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, New York, New York, for
Amicus Columbia Law School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic.
Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Norman C. Simon, Jason M. Moff, Kurt M.
Denk, Jessica N. Witte, KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, New
York, New York, for Amici Bishops of the Episcopal Church in
Virginia, The Central Atlantic Conference of the United Church
of Christ, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Mormons for
Equality, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association,
Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and Jewish
Reconstructionist Communities, Union for Reform Judaism, The
Unitarian Universalist Association, Affirmation, Covenant
Network of Presbyterians, Methodist Federation for Social
Action, More Light Presbyterians, Presbyterian Welcome,
Reconciling Ministries Network, Reconsilingworks: Lutherans For
Full Participation, Religious Institute, Inc., and Women of
Reform Judaism. Susan Baker Manning, Michael L. Whitlock,
Margaret E. Sheer, Jared A. Craft, Sara M. Carian, Jessica C.
Brooks, Katherine R. Moskop, John A. Polito, Stephanie Schuster,
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus 28 Employers
and Organizations Representing Employers. Martha Coakley,
Attorney General, Jonathan B. Miller, Assistant Attorney
General, Genevieve C. Nadeau, Assistant Attorney General,
Michelle L. Leung, Assistant Attorney General, Frederick D.
Augenstern, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Boston,
Massachusetts; Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, Sacramento, California; George
Jepsen, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
CONNECTICUT, Hartford, Connecticut; Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney
17
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C.; Lisa Madigan, Attorney General,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, Chicago, Illinois;
Tom Miller, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
IOWA, Des Moines, Iowa; Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MAINE, Augusta, Maine; Douglas F.
Gansler, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph A. Foster, Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,
Concord, New Hampshire; Gary K. King, Attorney General, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO, Santa Fe, New Mexico;
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF NEW YORK, New York, New York; Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OREGON,
Salem, Oregon; William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, Montpelier, Vermont; Robert W.
Ferguson, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON, Olympia, Washington, for Amici Massachusetts,
California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa,
Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,
Vermont, and Washington. Brad W. Seiling, Benjamin G. Shatz,
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for
Amicus Gary J. Gates. Bruce A. Wessel, Moez M. Kaba, C.
Mitchell Hendy, Brian Eggleston, IRELL & MANELLA LLP, Los
Angeles, California, for Amicus National and Western States
Women's Rights Organizations. Donald K. Butler, BATZLI STILES
BUTLER, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Susan M. Butler, SHOUNBACH,
P.C., Fairfax, Virginia; Daniel L. Gray, Stephanie J. Smith,
Kristen L. Kugel, Anne B. Robinson, COOPER GINSBERG GRAY, PLLC,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Amicus Virginia Chapter of The American
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Marcia D. Greenberger, Emily J.
Martin, Cortelyou C. Kenney, NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER,
Washington, D.C., for Amici The National Women's Law Center,
Equal Rights Advocates, Legal Momentum, National Association of
Women Lawyers, National Partnership for Women & Families,
Southwest Women's Law Center, Women's Law Project, and
Professors of Law Associated with The Williams Institute.
Jerome C. Roth, Nicole S. Phillis, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP,
San Francisco, California, for Amicus Bay Area Lawyers for
Individual Freedom. Shannon P. Minter, Christopher F. Stoll,
Jaime Huling Delaye, NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS,
Washington, D.C., for Amici Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, Public Interest Organizations, and Bar
Associations. Joanna L. Grossman, HOFSTRA LAW SCHOOL,
Hempstead, New York; Marjory A. Gentry, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, San
Francisco, California, for Amicus Family Law and Conflict of
Laws Professors. Mark C. Fleming, Felicia H. Ellsworth, Boston,
18
Massachusetts, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Dina B. Mishra, Leah M.
Litman, Washington, D.C., Alan Schoenfeld, WILMER CUTLER
PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, New York, New York, for Amicus Gay
& Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. John Humphrey, THE HUMPHREY
LAW FIRM, Alexandria, Virginia, for Amici People of Faith For
Equality in Virginia (POFEV), Celebration Center for Spiritual
Living, Clarendon Presbyterian Church, Commonwealth Baptist
Church, Congregation or AMI, Hope United Church of Christ,
Little River UCC, Metropolitan Community Church of Northern
Virginia, Mt. Vernon Unitarian Church, St. James UCC, St. John's
UCC, New Life Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship of the Peninsula, Unitarian Universalist
Congregation of Sterling, United Church of Christ of
Fredericksburg, Unitarian Universalist Church of Loudoun, Rev.
Marie Hulm Adam, Rev. Marty Anderson, Rev. Robin Anderson, Rev.
Verne Arens, Rabbi Lia Bass, Rev. Joseph G. Beattie, Rev. Marc
Boswell, Rev. Sue Browning, Rev. Jim Bundy, Rev. Mark Byrd, Rev.
Steven C. Clunn, Rev. Dr. John Coperhaver, Rabbi Gary Creditor,
Rev. David Ensign, Rev. Henry Fairman, Rabbi Jesse Gallop, Rev.
Tom Gerstenlauer, Rev. Dr. Robin H. Gorsline, Rev. Trish Hall,
Rev. Warren Hammonds, Rev. Jon Heaslet, Rev. Douglas Hodges,
Rev. Phyllis Hubbell, Rev. Stephen G. Hyde, Rev. Janet James,
Rev. John Manwell, Rev. James W. McNeal, Andrew Mertz, Rev.
Andrew Clive Millard, Rev. Dr. Melanie Miller, Rev. Amber
Neuroth, Rev. James Papile, Rev. Linda Olson Peebles, Rev. Don
Prange, Rabbi Michael Ragozin, Rabbi Ben Romer, Rev. Jennifer
Ryu, Rev. Anya Sammler-Michael, Rabbi Amy Schwartzman, Rev.
Danny Spears, Rev. Mark Suriano, Rev. Rob Vaughn, Rev. Daniel
Velez-Rivera, Rev. Kate R. Walker, Rev. Terrye Williams, and
Rev. Dr. Karen-Marie Yust.
19
FLOYD, Circuit Judge:
Via various state statutes and a state constitutional
amendment, Virginia prevents same-sex couples from marrying and
refuses to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Two same-sex couples filed suit to challenge the
constitutionality of these laws, alleging that they violate the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The district court granted the couples’ motion for
summary judgment and enjoined Virginia from enforcing the laws.
This appeal followed. Because we conclude that Virginia’s same-
sex marriage bans impermissibly infringe on its citizens’
fundamental right to marry, we affirm.
I.
A.
This case concerns a series of statutory and constitutional
mechanisms that Virginia employed to prohibit legal recognition
for same-sex relationships in that state. 1 Virginia enacted the
1
Three other states in this Circuit have similar bans:
North Carolina, N.C. Const. art. XIV, § 6; N.C. Gen. Stat.
§§ 51-1, 51-1.2; South Carolina, S.C. Const. art. XVII, § 15;
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 20-1-10, 20-1-15; and West Virginia, W. Va.
Code § 48-2-603. The Southern District of West Virginia has
stayed a challenge to West Virginia’s statute pending our
resolution of this appeal. McGee v. Cole, No. 3:13-cv-24068
(S.D. W. Va. June 10, 2014) (order directing stay).
20
first of these laws in 1975: Virginia Code section 20-45.2,
which provides that “marriage between persons of the same sex is
prohibited.” After the Supreme Court of Hawaii took steps to
legalize same-sex marriage in the mid-1990s, Virginia amended
section 20-45.2 to specify that “[a]ny marriage entered into by
persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall
be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights
created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.” In
2004, Virginia added civil unions and similar arrangements to
the list of prohibited same-sex relationships via the
Affirmation of Marriage Act. See Va. Code Ann. § 20-45.3.
Virginia’s efforts to ban same-sex marriage and other
legally recognized same-sex relationships culminated in the
Marshall/Newman Amendment to the Virginia Constitution:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be
a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth
and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall
not create or recognize a legal status for
relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to
approximate the design, qualities, significance, or
effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or
its political subdivisions create or recognize another
union, partnership, or other legal status to which is
assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities,
or effects of marriage.
Va. Const. art. I, § 15-A. The Virginia Constitution imposes
two hurdles that a potential amendment must jump before becoming
law: the General Assembly must approve the amendment in two
21
separate legislative sessions, and the people must ratify it.
Va. Const. art. XII, § 1. The General Assembly approved the
Marshall/Newman Amendment in 2005 and 2006. In November 2006,
Virginia’s voters ratified it by a vote of fifty-seven percent
to forty-three percent. In the aggregate, Virginia Code
sections 20-45.2 and 20-45.3 and the Marshall/Newman Amendment
prohibit same-sex marriage, ban other legally recognized same-
sex relationships, and render same-sex marriages performed
elsewhere legally meaningless under Virginia state law.
B.
Same-sex couples Timothy B. Bostic and Tony C. London and
Carol Schall and Mary Townley (collectively, the Plaintiffs)
brought this lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of
Virginia Code sections 20-45.2 and 20-45.3, the Marshall/Newman
Amendment, and “any other Virginia law that bars same-sex
marriage or prohibits the State’s recognition of otherwise-
lawful same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions”
(collectively, the Virginia Marriage Laws). The Plaintiffs
claim that the “inability to marry or have their relationship
recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia with the dignity and
respect accorded to married opposite-sex couples has caused them
significant hardship . . . and severe humiliation, emotional
distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, and stigma.”
22
Bostic and London have been in a long-term, committed
relationship with each other since 1989 and have lived together
for more than twenty years. They “desire to marry each other
under the laws of the Commonwealth in order to publicly announce
their commitment to one another and to enjoy the rights,
privileges, and protections that the State confers on married
couples.” On July 1, 2013, Bostic and London applied for a
marriage license from the Clerk for the Circuit Court for the
City of Norfolk. The Clerk denied their application because
they are both men.
Schall and Townley are women who have been a couple since
1985 and have lived together as a family for nearly thirty
years. They were lawfully married in California in 2008. In
1998, Townley gave birth to the couple’s daughter, E. S.-T.
Schall and Townley identify a host of consequences of their
inability to marry in Virginia and Virginia’s refusal to
recognize their California marriage, including the following:
• Schall could not visit Townley in the hospital for several
hours when Townley was admitted due to pregnancy-related
complications.
• Schall cannot legally adopt E. S.-T., which forced her to
retain an attorney to petition for full joint legal and
physical custody.
23
• Virginia will not list both Schall and Townley as E. S.-
T.’s parents on her birth certificate.
• Until February 2013, Schall and Townley could not cover one
another on their employer-provided health insurance.
Townley has been able to cover Schall on her insurance
since then, but, unlike an opposite-sex spouse, Schall must
pay state income taxes on the benefits she receives.
• Schall and Townley must pay state taxes on benefits paid
pursuant to employee benefits plans in the event of one of
their deaths.
• Schall and Townley cannot file joint state income tax
returns, which has cost them thousands of dollars.
On July 18, 2013, Bostic and London sued former Governor
Robert F. McDonnell, former Attorney General Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli, and George E. Schaefer, III, in his official
capacity as the Clerk for the Circuit Court for the City of
Norfolk. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on
September 3, 2013. The First Amended Complaint added Schall and
Townley as plaintiffs, removed McDonnell and Cuccinelli as
defendants, and added Janet M. Rainey as a defendant in her
official capacity as the State Registrar of Vital Records. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Virginia Marriage Laws are facially
invalid under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of
24
the Fourteenth Amendment and that Schaefer and Rainey violated
42 U.S.C. § 1983 by enforcing those laws.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The
Plaintiffs also requested a permanent injunction in connection
with their motion for summary judgment and moved, in the
alternative, for a preliminary injunction in the event that the
district court denied their motion for summary judgment. The
district court granted a motion by Michèle McQuigg—the Prince
William County Clerk of Court—to intervene as a defendant on
January 21, 2014. Two days later, new Attorney General Mark
Herring—as Rainey’s counsel—submitted a formal change in
position and refused to defend the Virginia Marriage Laws,
although Virginia continues to enforce them. McQuigg adopted
Rainey’s prior motion for summary judgment and the briefs in
support of that motion.
The district court held that the Virginia Marriage Laws
were unconstitutional on February 14, 2014. Bostic v. Rainey,
970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 483 (E.D. Va. 2014). It therefore denied
Schaefer’s and McQuigg’s motions for summary judgment and
granted the Plaintiffs’ motion. The district court also
enjoined Virginia’s employees—including Rainey and her
employees—and Schaefer, McQuigg, and their officers, agents, and
employees from enforcing the Virginia Marriage Laws. Id. at
25
484. The court stayed the injunction pending our resolution of
this appeal. Id.Rainey, Schaefer, and McQuigg timely appealed the district
court’s decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. On March 10, 2014, we allowed the plaintiffs from
Harris v. Rainey—a similar case pending before Judge Michael
Urbanski in the Western District of Virginia—to intervene.
Judge Urbanski had previously certified that case as a class
action on behalf of “all same-sex couples in Virginia who have
not married in another jurisdiction” and “all same-sex couples
in Virginia who have married in another jurisdiction,” excluding
the Plaintiffs. Harris v. Rainey, No. 5:13-cv-077, 2014 WL
352188, at *1, 12 (W.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2014).
Our analysis proceeds in three steps. First, we consider
whether the Plaintiffs possess standing to bring their claims.
Second, we evaluate whether the Supreme Court’s summary
dismissal of a similar lawsuit in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810(1972) (mem.), remains binding. Third, we determine which level
of constitutional scrutiny applies here and test the Virginia
Marriage Laws using the appropriate standard. For purposes of
this opinion, we adopt the terminology the district court used
to describe the parties in this case. The Plaintiffs, Rainey,
and the Harris class are the “Opponents” of the Virginia
Marriage Laws. Schaefer and McQuigg are the “Proponents.”
26
II.
Before we turn to the merits of the parties’ arguments in
this case, we consider Schaefer’s contention that “[t]he trial
court erred as a matter of law when it found all Plaintiffs had
standing and asserted claims against all Defendants.” We review
the district court’s disposition of cross-motions for summary
judgment—including its determinations regarding standing—de
novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party. Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308,
313 (4th Cir. 2013); Covenant Media of S.C., LLC v. City of N.
Charleston, 493 F.3d 421, 427-28 (4th Cir. 2007). Summary
judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Libertarian Party of Va., 718 F.3d at 313-14
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
To establish standing under Article III of the
Constitution, a plaintiff must “allege (1) an injury that is
(2) fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful
conduct and that is (3) likely to be redressed by the requested
relief.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 590
(1992) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984))
(internal quotation marks omitted). The standing requirement
applies to each claim that a plaintiff seeks to press.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006).
27
Schaefer premises his argument that the Plaintiffs lack standing
to bring their claims on the idea that every plaintiff must have
standing as to every defendant. However, the Supreme Court has
made it clear that “the presence of one party with standing is
sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy
requirement.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional
Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006); see also Dep’t of
Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 330
(1999) (holding that a case is justiciable if some, but not
necessarily all, of the plaintiffs have standing as to a
particular defendant); Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro.
Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 263-64 (1977) (same). The
Plaintiffs’ claims can therefore survive Schaefer’s standing
challenge as long as one couple satisfies the standing
requirements with respect to each defendant.
Schaefer serves as the Clerk for the Circuit Court for the
City of Norfolk. In Virginia, circuit court clerks are
responsible for issuing marriage licenses and filing records of
marriage. Va. Code Ann. §§ 20-14, 32.1-267. Although Schall
and Townley did not seek a marriage license from Schaefer, the
district court found that Bostic and London did so and that
Schaefer denied their request because they are a same-sex
28
couple. 2 Bostic, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 462, 467. This license
denial constitutes an injury for standing purposes. See S.
Blasting Servs., Inc. v. Wilkes Cnty., 288 F.3d 584, 595 (4th
Cir. 2002) (explaining that the plaintiffs had not suffered an
injury because they had not applied for, or been denied, the
permit in question); Scott v. Greenville Cnty., 716 F.2d 1409,
1414-15 & n.6 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding that denial of building
permit constituted an injury). Bostic and London can trace this
denial to Schaefer’s enforcement of the allegedly
unconstitutional Virginia Marriage Laws, 3 and declaring those
2
Schaefer contends that Schall and Townley cannot bring a
§ 1983 claim against him for the same reason: he did not commit
any act or omission that harmed them. To bring a successful
§ 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that “the alleged
infringement of federal rights [is] ‘fairly attributable to the
state[.]’” Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982)
(quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)).
Schaefer’s action in denying Bostic and London’s application for
a marriage license is clearly attributable to the state. The
district court could therefore entertain a § 1983 claim against
Schaefer without ascertaining whether he committed any action
with respect to Schall and Townley.
3
For this reason, and contrary to Schaefer’s assertions,
Schaefer is also a proper defendant under Ex parte Young, 209
U.S. 123 (1908). Pursuant to Ex parte Young, the Eleventh
Amendment does not bar a citizen from suing a state officer to
enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional law when the
officer has “some connection with the enforcement of the act.”
Lytle v. Griffith, 240 F.3d 404, 412 (4th Cir. 2001) (emphasis
omitted) (quoting Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 157). Schaefer
bears the requisite connection to the enforcement of the
Virginia Marriage Laws due to his role in granting and denying
applications for marriage licenses.
29
laws unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement would
redress Bostic and London’s injuries. Bostic and London
therefore possess Article III standing with respect to Schaefer.
We consequently need not consider whether Schall and Townley
have standing to sue Schaefer. See Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S.
433, 446-47 (2009) (declining to analyze whether additional
plaintiffs had standing when one plaintiff did).
Rainey—as the Registrar of Vital Records—is tasked with
developing Virginia’s marriage license application form and
distributing it to the circuit court clerks throughout Virginia.
Va. Code Ann. §§ 32.1-252(A)(9), 32.1-267(E). Neither
Schaefer’s nor Rainey’s response to the First Amended Complaint
disputes its description of Rainey’s duties:
Defendant Rainey is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the Commonwealth’s laws relating to
marriage in general and, more specifically, is
responsible for enforcement of the specific provisions
at issue in this Amended Complaint, namely those laws
that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and that
refuse to honor the benefits of same-sex marriages
lawfully entered into in other states.
In addition to performing these marriage-related functions,
Rainey develops and distributes birth certificate forms,
oversees the rules relating to birth certificates, and furnishes
forms relating to adoption so that Virginia can collect the
information necessary to prepare the adopted child’s birth
30
certificate. Id. §§ 32.1-252(A)(2)-(3), (9), 32.1-257, 32.1-
261(A)(1), 32.1-262, 32.1-269.
Rainey’s promulgation of a marriage license application
form that does not allow same-sex couples to obtain marriage
licenses resulted in Schaefer’s denial of Bostic and London’s
marriage license request. For the reasons we describe above,
this license denial constitutes an injury. Bostic and London
can trace this injury to Rainey due to her role in developing
the marriage license application form in compliance with the
Virginia Marriage Laws, and the relief they seek would redress
their injuries. Bostic and London consequently have standing to
sue Rainey.
Schall and Townley also possess standing to bring their
claims against Rainey. They satisfy the injury requirement in
two ways. First, in equal protection cases—such as this case—
“[w]hen the government erects a barrier that makes it more
difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it
is for members of another group, . . . . [t]he ‘injury in fact’
. . . is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the
imposition of the barrier[.]” Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated
Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656,
666 (1993). The Virginia Marriage Laws erect such a barrier,
which prevents same-sex couples from obtaining the emotional,
social, and financial benefits that opposite-sex couples realize
31
upon marriage. Second, Schall and Townley allege that they have
suffered stigmatic injuries due to their inability to get
married in Virginia and Virginia’s refusal to recognize their
California marriage. Stigmatic injury stemming from
discriminatory treatment is sufficient to satisfy standing’s
injury requirement if the plaintiff identifies “some concrete
interest with respect to which [he or she] [is] personally
subject to discriminatory treatment” and “[t]hat interest . . .
independently satisf[ies] the causation requirement of standing
doctrine.” Allen, 468 U.S. at 757 n.22, abrogated on other
grounds by Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, 134
S. Ct. 1377 (2014). Schall and Townley point to several
concrete ways in which the Virginia Marriage Laws have resulted
in discriminatory treatment. For example, they allege that
their marital status has hindered Schall from visiting Townley
in the hospital, prevented Schall from adopting E. S.-T., 4 and
subjected Schall and Townley to tax burdens from which married
opposite-sex couples are exempt. Because Schall and Townley
highlight specific, concrete instances of discrimination rather
4
Virginia does not explicitly prohibit same-sex couples
from adopting children. The Virginia Marriage Laws impose a
functional ban on adoption by same-sex couples because the
Virginia Code allows only married couples or unmarried
individuals to adopt children. Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1232(A)(6).
32
than making abstract allegations, their stigmatic injuries are
legally cognizable.
Schall and Townley’s injuries are traceable to Rainey’s
enforcement of the Virginia Marriage Laws. Because declaring
the Virginia Marriage Laws unconstitutional and enjoining their
enforcement would redress Schall and Townley’s injuries, they
satisfy standing doctrine’s three requirements with respect to
Rainey. In sum, each of the Plaintiffs has standing as to at
least one defendant.
III.
Having resolved the threshold issue of whether the
Plaintiffs have standing to sue Schaefer and Rainey, we now turn
to the merits of the Opponents’ Fourteenth Amendment arguments.
We begin with the issue of whether the Supreme Court’s summary
dismissal in Baker v. Nelson settles this case. Baker came to
the Supreme Court as an appeal from a Minnesota Supreme Court
decision, which held that a state statute that the court
interpreted to bar same-sex marriages did not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses.
Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn. 1971). At the time,
28 U.S.C. § 1257 required the Supreme Court to accept appeals of
state supreme court cases involving constitutional challenges to
state statutes, such as Baker. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S.
33332, 344 (1975). The Court dismissed the appeal in a one-
sentence opinion “for want of a substantial federal question.”
Baker, 409 U.S. 810.
Summary dismissals qualify as “votes on the merits of a
case.” Hicks, 422 U.S. at 344 (quoting Ohio ex rel. Eaton v.
Price, 360 U.S. 246, 247 (1959)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). They therefore “prevent lower courts from coming to
opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and
necessarily decided.” Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176
(1977) (per curiam). However, the fact that Baker and the case
at hand address the same precise issues does not end our
inquiry. Summary dismissals lose their binding force when
“doctrinal developments” illustrate that the Supreme Court no
longer views a question as unsubstantial, regardless of whether
the Court explicitly overrules the case. Hicks, 422 U.S. at 344
(quoting Port Auth. Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Port of N.Y.
Auth., 387 F.2d 259, 263 n.3 (2d Cir. 1967)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The district court determined that doctrinal
developments stripped Baker of its status as binding precedent.
Bostic, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 469-70. Every federal court to
consider this issue since the Supreme Court decided United
States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), has reached the same
conclusion. See Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14-5003, 14-5006, 2014 WL
3537847, at *6-7 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert,
34
No. 13-4178, 2014 WL 2868044, at *7-10 (10th Cir. June 25,
2014); Love v. Beshear, No. 3:13-cv-750-H, 2014 WL 2957671, *2-3
(W.D. Ky. July 1, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, Nos. 1:14-cv-00355-
RLY-TAB, 1:14-cv-00404-RLY-TAB, 2014 WL 2884868, at *4-6 (S.D.
Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc, 2014 WL
2558444, at *4-6 (W.D. Wis. June 6, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf,
No. 1:13-cv-1861, 2014 WL 2058105, at *5-6 (M.D. Pa. May 20,
2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, Nos. 6:13-cv-01834-MC, 6:13-cv-
02256-MC, 2014 WL 2054264, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. May 19, 2014);
Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD, 2014 WL 1909999, at *8-9
(D. Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757,
773 n.6 (E.D. Mich. 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d
632, 647-49 (W.D. Tex. 2014); McGee v. Cole, No. 3:13-24068,
2014 WL 321122, at *8-10 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 29, 2014).
Windsor concerned whether section 3 of the federal Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA) contravened the Constitution’s due
process and equal protection guarantees. Section 3 defined
“marriage” and “spouse” as excluding same-sex couples when those
terms appeared in federal statutes, regulations, and directives,
rendering legally married same-sex couples ineligible for myriad
federal benefits. 133 S. Ct. at 2683, 2694. When it decided
the case below, the Second Circuit concluded that Baker was no
longer precedential, Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169,
178-79 (2d Cir. 2012), over the dissent’s vigorous arguments to
35
the contrary, see id. at 192-95 (Straub, J., dissenting in part
and concurring in part). Despite this dispute, the Supreme
Court did not discuss Baker in its opinion or during oral
argument. 5
The Supreme Court’s willingness to decide Windsor without
mentioning Baker speaks volumes regarding whether Baker remains
good law. The Court’s development of its due process and equal
protection jurisprudence in the four decades following Baker is
even more instructive. On the Due Process front, Lawrence v.
Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Windsor are particularly
relevant. In Lawrence, the Court recognized that the Due
Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “afford
constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to
marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships,
child rearing, and education. . . . Persons in a homosexual
relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as
5
The constitutionality of a law that prohibited marriage
from encompassing same-sex relationships was also at issue in
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), a case that the
Supreme Court ultimately decided on standing grounds. Although
the petitioners’ attorney attempted to invoke Baker during oral
argument, Justice Ginsburg interjected: “Baker v. Nelson was
1971. The Supreme Court hadn’t even decided that gender-based
classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. . . .
[S]ame-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many
states in 1971, so I don’t think we can extract much in Baker v.
Nelson.” Oral Argument at 11:33, Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S.
Ct. 2652 (No. 12-144), available at 2013 WL 1212745.
36
heterosexual persons do.” Id. at 574. These considerations led
the Court to strike down a Texas statute that criminalized same-
sex sodomy. Id. at 563, 578-79. The Windsor Court based its
decision to invalidate section 3 of DOMA on the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court concluded that
section 3 could not withstand constitutional scrutiny because
“the principal purpose and the necessary effect of [section 3]
are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex
marriage,” who—like the unmarried same-sex couple in Lawrence—
have a constitutional right to make “moral and sexual choices.”
133 S. Ct. at 2694-95. These cases firmly position same-sex
relationships within the ambit of the Due Process Clauses’
protection.
The Court has also issued several major equal protection
decisions since it decided Baker. The Court’s opinions in Craig
v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), and Frontiero v. Richardson, 411
U.S. 677 (1973), identified sex-based classifications as quasi-
suspect, causing them to warrant intermediate scrutiny rather
than rational basis review, see Craig, 429 U.S. at 218(Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (coining the term “intermediate
level scrutiny” to describe the Court’s test (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Two decades later, in Romer v. Evans, the
Supreme Court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment
that prohibited legislative, executive, and judicial action
37
aimed at protecting gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from
discrimination. 517 U.S. 620, 624, 635 (1996). The Court
concluded that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal
Protection Clause because “its sheer breadth is so discontinuous
with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems
inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it
affects,” causing the law to “lack[] a rational relationship to
legitimate state interests.” Id. at 632. Finally, the Supreme
Court couched its decision in Windsor in both due process and
equal protection terms. 133 S. Ct. at 2693, 2695. These cases
demonstrate that, since Baker, the Court has meaningfully
altered the way it views both sex and sexual orientation through
the equal protection lens.
In light of the Supreme Court’s apparent abandonment of
Baker and the significant doctrinal developments that occurred
after the Court issued its summary dismissal in that case, we
decline to view Baker as binding precedent and proceed to the
meat of the Opponents’ Fourteenth Amendment arguments.
IV.
A.
Our analysis of the Opponents’ Fourteenth Amendment claims
has two components. First, we ascertain what level of
constitutional scrutiny applies: either rational basis review
38
or some form of heightened scrutiny, such as strict scrutiny.
Second, we apply the appropriate level of scrutiny to determine
whether the Virginia Marriage Laws pass constitutional muster.
Under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses,
interference with a fundamental right warrants the application
of strict scrutiny. 6 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702,
719-20 (1997); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383 (1978).
We therefore begin by assessing whether the Virginia Marriage
Laws infringe on a fundamental right. Fundamental rights spring
from the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of individual
liberty, which the Supreme Court has described as “the right to
define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the
universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Planned Parenthood
of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992). This liberty
includes the fundamental right to marry. Zablocki, 434 U.S. at
383; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); see Griswold v.
6
The Equal Protection Clause also dictates that some form
of heightened scrutiny applies when a law discriminates based on
a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, such as race or
gender. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S.
432, 440-41 (1985); Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307,
313-14 (1976) (per curiam). This Court previously declined to
recognize sexual orientation as a suspect classification in
Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 928 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
and Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 731-32 (4th Cir. 2002).
Because we conclude that the Virginia Marriage Laws warrant
strict scrutiny due to their infringement of the fundamental
right to marry, we need not reach the question of whether
Thomasson and Veney remain good law.
39
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (1965) (placing the right to
marry within the fundamental right to privacy); see also Skinner
v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)
(characterizing marriage as “one of the basic civil rights of
man”); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888) (calling
marriage “the most important relation in life” and “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there
would be neither civilization nor progress”).
The Opponents and Proponents agree that marriage is a
fundamental right. They strongly disagree, however, regarding
whether that right encompasses the right to same-sex marriage.
The Opponents argue that the fundamental right to marry belongs
to the individual, who enjoys the right to marry the person of
his or her choice. By contrast, the Proponents point out that,
traditionally, states have sanctioned only man-woman marriages.
They contend that, in light of this history, the right to marry
does not include a right to same-sex marriage.
Relying on Washington v. Glucksberg, the Proponents aver
that the district court erred by not requiring “a careful
description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest,” 521
U.S. at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted), which they
characterize as the right to “marriage to another person of the
same sex,” not the right to marry. In Glucksberg, the Supreme
Court described the right at issue as “a right to commit suicide
40
with another’s assistance.” Id. at 724. The Court declined to
categorize this right as a new fundamental right because it was
not, “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and
tradition.” See id. at 720-21 (quoting Moore v. City of E.
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The Proponents urge us to reject the right to same-
sex marriage for the same reason.
We do not dispute that states have refused to permit same-
sex marriages for most of our country’s history. However, this
fact is irrelevant in this case because Glucksberg’s analysis
applies only when courts consider whether to recognize new
fundamental rights. See id. at 720, 727 & n.19 (identifying the
above process as a way of “expand[ing] the concept of
substantive due process” beyond established fundamental rights,
such as the right to marry (quoting Collins v. City of Harker
Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992)) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Because we conclude that the fundamental right to
marry encompasses the right to same-sex marriage, Glucksberg’s
analysis is inapplicable here.
Over the decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that
the right to marry is an expansive liberty interest that may
stretch to accommodate changing societal norms. Perhaps most
notably, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court invalidated a
Virginia law that prohibited white individuals from marrying
41
individuals of other races. 388 U.S. at 4. The Court explained
that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men” and that no valid basis justified the
Virginia law’s infringement of that right. Id. at 12.
Subsequently, in Zablocki v. Redhail, the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of a Wisconsin statute that
required people obligated to pay child support to obtain a court
order granting permission to marry before they could receive a
marriage license. 434 U.S. at 375, 383-84. The statute
specified that a court should grant permission only to
applicants who proved that they had complied with their child
support obligations and demonstrated that their children were
not likely to become “public charges.” Id. at 375 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The Court held that the statute
impermissibly infringed on the right to marry. See id. at 390-
91. Finally, in Turner v. Safley, the Court determined that a
Missouri regulation that generally prohibited prison inmates
from marrying was an unconstitutional breach of the right to
marry. 482 U.S. 78, 82, 94-99 (1987).
These cases do not define the rights in question as “the
right to interracial marriage,” “the right of people owing child
support to marry,” and “the right of prison inmates to marry.”
Instead, they speak of a broad right to marry that is not
42
circumscribed based on the characteristics of the individuals
seeking to exercise that right. The Supreme Court’s
unwillingness to constrain the right to marry to certain
subspecies of marriage meshes with its conclusion that the right
to marry is a matter of “freedom of choice,” Zablocki, 434 U.S.
at 387, that “resides with the individual,” Loving, 388 U.S. at
12. If courts limited the right to marry to certain couplings,
they would effectively create a list of legally preferred
spouses, rendering the choice of whom to marry a hollow choice
indeed.
The Proponents point out that Loving, Zablocki, and Turner
each involved opposite-sex couples. They contend that, because
the couples in those cases chose to enter opposite-sex
marriages, we cannot use them to conclude that the Supreme Court
would grant the same level of constitutional protection to the
choice to marry a person of the same sex. However, the Supreme
Court’s decisions in Lawrence and Windsor suggest otherwise. In
Lawrence, the Court expressly refused to narrowly define the
right at issue as the right of “homosexuals to engage in
sodomy,” concluding that doing so would constitute a “failure to
appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake.” 539 U.S. at
566-67. Just as it has done in the right-to-marry arena, the
Court identified the right at issue in Lawrence as a matter of
choice, explaining that gay and lesbian individuals—like all
43
people—enjoy the right to make decisions regarding their
personal relationships. Id. at 567. As we note above, the
Court reiterated this theme in Windsor, in which it based its
conclusion that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional, in part,
on that provision’s disrespect for the “moral and sexual
choices” that accompany a same-sex couple’s decision to marry.
133 S. Ct. at 2694. Lawrence and Windsor indicate that the
choices that individuals make in the context of same-sex
relationships enjoy the same constitutional protection as the
choices accompanying opposite-sex relationships. We therefore
have no reason to suspect that the Supreme Court would accord
the choice to marry someone of the same sex any less respect
than the choice to marry an opposite-sex individual who is of a
different race, owes child support, or is imprisoned.
Accordingly, we decline the Proponents’ invitation to
characterize the right at issue in this case as the right to
same-sex marriage rather than simply the right to marry.
Of course, “[b]y reaffirming the fundamental character of
the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state
regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or
prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous
scrutiny.” Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386. Strict scrutiny applies
only when laws “significantly interfere” with a fundamental
right. See id. at 386-87. The Virginia Marriage Laws
44
unquestionably satisfy this requirement: they impede the right
to marry by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and
nullifying the legal import of their out-of-state marriages.
Strict scrutiny therefore applies in this case.
B.
Under strict scrutiny, a law “may be justified only by
compelling state interests, and must be narrowly drawn to
express only those interests.” Carey v. Population Servs.
Int’l, 431 U.S. 678, 686 (1977). The Proponents bear the burden
of demonstrating that the Virginia Marriage Laws satisfy this
standard, see Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 133 S. Ct.
2411, 2420 (2013), and they must rely on the laws’ “actual
purpose[s]” rather than hypothetical justifications, see Shaw v.
Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 908 n.4 (1996). The Proponents 7 contend that
five compelling interests undergird the Virginia Marriage Laws:
(1) Virginia’s federalism-based interest in maintaining control
over the definition of marriage within its borders, (2) the
history and tradition of opposite-sex marriage, (3) protecting
the institution of marriage, (4) encouraging responsible
7
Although some of these arguments appear only in McQuigg’s
briefs, we attribute them to the Proponents because Schaefer
“reserved the right to adopt and incorporate in whole or in
part” McQuigg’s discussion of the rationales underlying the
Virginia Marriage Laws.
45
procreation, and (5) promoting the optimal childrearing
environment. We discuss each of these interests in turn.
1. Federalism
The Constitution does not grant the federal government any
authority over domestic relations matters, such as marriage.
Accordingly, throughout our country’s history, states have
enjoyed the freedom to define and regulate marriage as they see
fit. See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2691-92. States’ control over
marriage laws within their borders has resulted in some
variation among states’ requirements. For example, West
Virginia prohibits first cousins from marrying, W. Va. Code
§ 48-2-302, but the remaining states in this Circuit allow first
cousin marriage, see Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 2-202; N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 51-3; S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10; Va. Code Ann. § 20-38.1.
States’ power to define and regulate marriage also accounts for
their differing treatment of same-sex couples.
The Windsor decision rested in part on the Supreme Court’s
respect for states’ supremacy in the domestic relations sphere. 8
8
In Windsor, the Court did not label the type of
constitutional scrutiny it applied, leaving us unsure how the
Court would fit its federalism discussion within a traditional
heightened scrutiny or rational basis analysis. The lower
courts have taken differing approaches, with some discussing
Windsor and federalism as a threshold matter, see, e.g., Wolf,
2014 WL 2558444, at *8-12; Bishop v. United States ex rel.
46
The Court recognized that section 3 of DOMA upset the status quo
by robbing states of their ability to define marriage. Although
states could legalize same-sex marriage, they could not ensure
that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage would
be uniform within their borders. See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at
2692. However, the Court did not lament that section 3 had
usurped states’ authority over marriage due to its desire to
safeguard federalism. Id. (“[T]he State’s power in defining the
marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite
apart from the principles of federalism.”). Its concern sprung
from section 3’s creation of two classes of married couples
within states that had legalized same-sex marriage: opposite-
sex couples, whose marriages the federal government recognized,
and same-sex couples, whose marriages the federal government
ignored. Id. The resulting injury to same-sex couples served
as the foundation for the Court’s conclusion that section 3
violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. at 2693.
Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1277-79 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Kitchen
v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1193-94 (D. Utah 2013), and
others—such as the district court in this case—considering
federalism as a state interest underlying the same-sex marriage
bans at issue, see, e.g., Latta, 2014 WL 1909999, at *25-26;
DeBoer, 973 F. Supp. 2d at 773-75; Bostic, 970 F. Supp. 2d at
475-77. Although we follow the district court’s lead and
situate our federalism discussion within our application of
strict scrutiny, our conclusion would remain the same even if we
selected an alternate organizational approach.
47
Citing Windsor, the Proponents urge us to view Virginia’s
federalism-based interest in defining marriage as a suitable
justification for the Virginia Marriage Laws. However, Windsor
is actually detrimental to their position. Although the Court
emphasized states’ traditional authority over marriage, it
acknowledged that “[s]tate laws defining and regulating
marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of
persons.” Id. at 2691 (citing Loving, 388 U.S. 1); see also id.
at 2692 (“The States’ interest in defining and regulating the
marital relation[] [is] subject to constitutional guarantees.”).
Windsor does not teach us that federalism principles can justify
depriving individuals of their constitutional rights; it
reiterates Loving’s admonition that the states must exercise
their authority without trampling constitutional guarantees.
Virginia’s federalism-based interest in defining marriage
therefore cannot justify its encroachment on the fundamental
right to marry.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Schuette v.
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014),
does not change the conclusion that Windsor dictates. In
Schuette, the Court refused to strike down a voter-approved
state constitutional amendment that barred public universities
in Michigan from using race-based preferences as part of their
admissions processes. Id. at 1629, 1638. The Court declined to
48
closely scrutinize the amendment because it was not “used, or
. . . likely to be used, to encourage infliction of injury by
reason of race.” See id. at 1638. Instead, the Court dwelled
on the need to respect the voters’ policy choice, concluding
that “[i]t is demeaning to the democratic process to presume
that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this
sensitivity on decent and rational grounds” and the judiciary’s
role was not to “disempower the voters from choosing which path
to follow.” Id. at 1635-38.
The Proponents emphasize that Virginia’s voters approved
the Marshall/Newman Amendment. Like the Michigan amendment at
issue in Schuette, the Marshall/Newman Amendment is the
codification of Virginians’ policy choice in a legal arena that
is fraught with intense social and political debate. Americans’
ability to speak with their votes is essential to our democracy.
But the people’s will is not an independent compelling interest
that warrants depriving same-sex couples of their fundamental
right to marry.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights 9 was to withdraw
certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political
9
Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment is not part of the
Bill of Rights. This excerpt from Barnette is nevertheless
relevant here due to the Fourteenth Amendment’s similar goal of
protecting unpopular minorities from government overreaching,
see Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 293 (1978),
and its role in rendering the Bill of Rights applicable to the
states, see Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147-48 (1968).
49
controversy, to place them beyond the reach of
majorities and officials and to establish them as
legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s
right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech,
a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and
other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections.
W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
(footnote added); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 623 (invalidating
a voter-approved amendment to Colorado’s constitution); Lucas v.
Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of Colo., 377 U.S. 713, 736-37 (1964)
(“A citizen’s constitutional rights can hardly be infringed
simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.”).
Accordingly, neither Virginia’s federalism-based interest in
defining marriage nor our respect for the democratic process
that codified that definition can excuse the Virginia Marriage
Laws’ infringement of the right to marry.
2. History and Tradition
The Proponents also point to the “history and tradition” of
opposite-sex marriage as a compelling interest that supports the
Virginia Marriage Laws. The Supreme Court has made it clear
that, even under rational basis review, the “[a]ncient lineage
of a legal concept does not give it immunity from attack.”
Heller v. Doe ex rel. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 326 (1993). The
closely linked interest of promoting moral principles is
similarly infirm in light of Lawrence: “the fact that the
50
governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a
particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for
upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor
tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from
constitutional attack.” 539 U.S. at 577-78 (quoting Bowers v.
Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 216 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting))
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 601 (Scalia,
J., dissenting) (“But ‘preserving the traditional institution of
marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral
disapproval of same-sex couples.”). Preserving the historical
and traditional status quo is therefore not a compelling
interest that justifies the Virginia Marriage Laws.
3. Safeguarding the Institution of Marriage
In addition to arguing that history and tradition are
compelling interests in their own rights, the Proponents warn
that deviating from the tradition of opposite-sex marriage will
destabilize the institution of marriage. The Proponents suggest
that legalizing same-sex marriage will sever the link between
marriage and procreation: they argue that, if same-sex couples—
who cannot procreate naturally—are allowed to marry, the state
will sanction the idea that marriage is a vehicle for adults’
emotional fulfillment, not simply a framework for parenthood.
According to the Proponents, if adults are the focal point of
51
marriage, “then no logical grounds reinforce stabilizing norms
like sexual exclusivity, permanence, and monogamy,” which exist
to benefit children.
We recognize that, in some cases, we owe “substantial
deference to the predictive judgments” of the Virginia General
Assembly, for whom the Proponents purport to speak. Turner
Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 195 (1997). However,
even if we view the Proponents’ theories through rose-colored
glasses, we conclude that they are unfounded for two key
reasons. First, the Supreme Court rejected the view that
marriage is about only procreation in Griswold v. Connecticut,
in which it upheld married couples’ right not to procreate and
articulated a view of marriage that has nothing to do with
children:
Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse,
hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of
being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way
of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial
or social projects. Yet it is an association for as
noble a purpose as any involved in our prior
decisions.
381 U.S. at 485-86; see also Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-96(describing many non-procreative purposes of marriage). The
fact that marriage’s stabilizing norms have endured in the five
decades since the Supreme Court made this pronouncement weakens
52
the argument that couples remain in monogamous marriages only
for the sake of their offspring.
Second, the primary support that the Proponents offer for
their theory is the legacy of a wholly unrelated legal change to
marriage: no-fault divorce. Although no-fault divorce
certainly altered the realities of married life by making it
easier for couples to end their relationships, we have no reason
to think that legalizing same-sex marriage will have a similar
destabilizing effect. In fact, it is more logical to think that
same-sex couples want access to marriage so that they can take
advantage of its hallmarks, including faithfulness and
permanence, and that allowing loving, committed same-sex couples
to marry and recognizing their out-of-state marriages will
strengthen the institution of marriage. We therefore reject the
Proponents’ concerns.
4. Responsible Procreation
Next, the Proponents contend that the Virginia Marriage
Laws’ differentiation between opposite-sex and same-sex couples
stems from the fact that unintended pregnancies cannot result
from same-sex unions. By sanctioning only opposite-sex
marriages, the Virginia Marriage Laws “provid[e] stability to
the types of relationships that result in unplanned pregnancies,
thereby avoiding or diminishing the negative outcomes often
53
associated with unintended children.” The Proponents allege
that children born to unwed parents face a “significant risk” of
being raised in unstable families, which is harmful to their
development. Virginia, “of course, has a duty of the highest
order to protect the interests of minor children, particularly
those of tender years.” Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433
(1984). However, the Virginia Marriage Laws are not
appropriately tailored to further this interest.
If Virginia sought to ensure responsible procreation via
the Virginia Marriage Laws, the laws are woefully
underinclusive. Same-sex couples are not the only category of
couples who cannot reproduce accidentally. For example,
opposite-sex couples cannot procreate unintentionally if they
include a post-menopausal woman or an individual with a medical
condition that prevents unassisted conception.
The Proponents attempt to downplay the similarity between
same-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples in three
ways. First, they point out that sterile individuals could
remedy their fertility through future medical advances. This
potentiality, however, does not explain why Virginia should
treat same-sex and infertile opposite-sex couples differently
during the course of the latter group’s infertility. Second,
the Proponents posit that, even if one member of a man-woman
couple is sterile, the other member may not be. They suggest
54
that, without marriage’s monogamy mandate, this fertile
individual is more likely to have an unintended child with a
third party. They contend that, due to this possibility, even
opposite-sex couples who cannot procreate need marriage to
channel their procreative activity in a way that same-sex
couples do not. The Proponents’ argument assumes that
individuals in same-sex relationships never have opposite-sex
sexual partners, which is simply not the case. Third, the
Proponents imply that, by marrying, infertile opposite-sex
couples set a positive example for couples who can have
unintended children, thereby encouraging them to marry. We see
no reason why committed same-sex couples cannot serve as similar
role models. We therefore reject the Proponents’ attempts to
differentiate same-sex couples from other couples who cannot
procreate accidentally. Because same-sex couples and infertile
opposite-sex couples are similarly situated, the Equal
Protection Clause counsels against treating these groups
differently. See City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 439 (explaining
that the Equal Protection Clause “is essentially a direction
that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike”).
Due to the Virginia Marriage Laws’ underinclusivity, this
case resembles City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
In City of Cleburne, the Supreme Court struck down a city law
that required group homes for the intellectually disabled to
55
obtain a special use permit. Id. at 447-50. The city did not
impose the same requirement on similar structures, such as
apartment complexes and nursing homes. Id. at 447. The Court
determined that the permit requirement was so underinclusive
that the city’s motivation must have “rest[ed] on an irrational
prejudice,” rendering the law unconstitutional. Id. at 450. In
light of the Virginia Marriage Laws’ extreme underinclusivity,
we are forced to draw the same conclusion in this case.
The Proponents’ responsible procreation argument falters
for another reason as well. Strict scrutiny requires that a
state’s means further its compelling interest. See Shaw, 517
U.S. at 915 (“Although we have not always provided precise
guidance on how closely the means . . . must serve the end (the
justification or compelling interest), we have always expected
that the legislative action would substantially address, if not
achieve, the avowed purpose.”). Prohibiting same-sex couples
from marrying and ignoring their out-of-state marriages does not
serve Virginia’s goal of preventing out-of-wedlock births.
Although same-sex couples cannot procreate accidentally, they
can and do have children via other methods. According to an
amicus brief filed by Dr. Gary J. Gates, as of the 2010 U.S.
Census, more than 2500 same-sex couples were raising more than
4000 children under the age of eighteen in Virginia. The
56
Virginia Marriage Laws therefore increase the number of children
raised by unmarried parents.
The Proponents acknowledge that same-sex couples become
parents. They contend, however, that the state has no interest
in channeling same-sex couples’ procreative activities into
marriage because same-sex couples “bring children into their
relationship[s] only through intentional choice and pre-planned
action.” Accordingly, “[t]hose couples neither advance nor
threaten society’s public purpose for marriage”—stabilizing
parental relationships for the benefit of children—“in the same
manner, or to the same degree, that sexual relationships between
men and women do.”
In support of this argument, the Proponents invoke the
Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361(1974). Johnson concerned educational benefits that the federal
government granted to military veterans who served on active
duty. Id. at 363. The government provided these benefits to
encourage enlistment and make military service more palatable to
existing servicemembers. Id. at 382-83. A conscientious
objector—who refused to serve in the military for religious
reasons—brought suit, contending that the government acted
unconstitutionally by granting benefits to veterans but not
conscientious objectors. Id. at 363-64. The Court explained
that, “[w]hen, as in this case, the inclusion of one group
57
promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of
other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute’s
classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is
invidiously discriminatory.” Id. at 383. Because offering
educational benefits to conscientious objectors would not
incentivize military service, the federal government’s line-
drawing was constitutional. Johnson, 415 U.S. at 382-83. The
Proponents claim that treating opposite-sex couples differently
from same-sex couples is equally justified because the two
groups are not similarly situated with respect to their
procreative potential.
Johnson applied rational basis review, id. at 374-75, so we
strongly doubt its applicability to our strict scrutiny
analysis. In any event, we can easily distinguish Johnson from
the instant case. In Johnson, offering educational benefits to
veterans who served on active duty promoted the government’s
goal of making military service more attractive. Extending
those benefits to conscientious objectors, whose religious
beliefs precluded military service, did not further that
objective. By contrast, a stable marital relationship is
attractive regardless of a couple’s procreative ability.
Allowing infertile opposite-sex couples to marry does nothing to
further the government’s goal of channeling procreative conduct
into marriage. Thus, excluding same-sex couples from marriage
58
due to their inability to have unintended children makes little
sense. Johnson therefore does not alter our conclusion that
barring same-sex couples’ access to marriage does nothing to
further Virginia’s interest in responsible procreation.
5. Optimal Childrearing
We now shift to discussing the merit of the final
compelling interest that the Proponents invoke: optimal
childrearing. The Proponents aver that “children develop best
when reared by their married biological parents in a stable
family unit.” They dwell on the importance of “gender-
differentiated parenting” and argue that sanctioning same-sex
marriage will deprive children of the benefit of being raised by
a mother and a father, who have “distinct parenting styles.” In
essence, the Proponents argue that the Virginia Marriage Laws
safeguard children by preventing same-sex couples from marrying
and starting inferior families.
The Opponents and their amici cast serious doubt on the
accuracy of the Proponents’ contentions. For example, as the
American Psychological Association, American Academy of
Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, National
Association of Social Workers, and Virginia Psychological
Association (collectively, the APA) explain in their amicus
brief, “there is no scientific evidence that parenting
59
effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation,” and
“the same factors”—including family stability, economic
resources, and the quality of parent-child relationships—“are
linked to children’s positive development, whether they are
raised by heterosexual, lesbian, or gay parents.” According to
the APA, “the parenting abilities of gay men and lesbians—and
the positive outcomes for their children—are not areas where
most credible scientific researchers disagree,” and the contrary
studies that the Proponents cite “do not reflect the current
state of scientific knowledge.” See also DeBoer, 973 F. Supp.
2d at 760-68 (making factual findings and reaching the same
conclusion). In fact, the APA explains that, by preventing
same-sex couples from marrying, the Virginia Marriage Laws
actually harm the children of same-sex couples by stigmatizing
their families and robbing them of the stability, economic
security, and togetherness that marriage fosters. The Supreme
Court reached a similar conclusion in Windsor, in which it
observed that failing to recognize same-sex marriages
“humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by
same-sex couples” and “makes it even more difficult for the
children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own
family and its concord with other families in their community
and in their daily lives.” 133 S. Ct. at 2694.
60
We find the arguments that the Opponents and their amici
make on this issue extremely persuasive. However, we need not
resolve this dispute because the Proponents’ optimal
childrearing argument falters for at least two other reasons.
First, under heightened scrutiny, states cannot support a law
using “overbroad generalizations about the different talents,
capacities, or preferences of” the groups in question. United
States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533-34 (1996) (rejecting
“inherent differences” between men and women as a justification
for excluding all women from a traditionally all-male military
college); see also Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 656-58
(1972) (holding that a state could not presume that unmarried
fathers were unfit parents). The Proponents’ statements
regarding same-sex couples’ parenting ability certainly qualify
as overbroad generalizations. Second, as we explain above,
strict scrutiny requires congruity between a law’s means and its
end. This congruity is absent here. There is absolutely no
reason to suspect that prohibiting same-sex couples from
marrying and refusing to recognize their out-of-state marriages
will cause same-sex couples to raise fewer children or impel
married opposite-sex couples to raise more children. The
Virginia Marriage Laws therefore do not further Virginia’s
interest in channeling children into optimal families, even if
61
we were to accept the dubious proposition that same-sex couples
are less capable parents.
Because the Proponents’ arguments are based on overbroad
generalizations about same-sex parents, and because there is no
link between banning same-sex marriage and promoting optimal
childrearing, this aim cannot support the Virginia Marriage
Laws. All of the Proponents’ justifications for the Virginia
Marriage Laws therefore fail, and the laws cannot survive strict
scrutiny.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Virginia
Marriage Laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they
prevent same-sex couples from marrying and prohibit Virginia
from recognizing same-sex couples’ lawful out-of-state
marriages. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of
the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and its decision to
enjoin enforcement of the Virginia Marriage Laws. 10
10
Because we are able to resolve the merits of the
Opponents’ claims, we need not consider their alternative
request for a preliminary injunction. We assume that the
district court’s decision to enjoin enforcement of the Virginia
Marriage Laws encompassed a permanent injunction, which the
Plaintiffs requested in connection with their motion for summary
judgment.
62
We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people
deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are
not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process
and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the
cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to
celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong
partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy,
companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of
whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that
alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex
couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in
our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the
Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.
AFFIRMED
63
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
To be clear, this case is not about whether courts favor or
disfavor same-sex marriage, or whether States recognizing or
declining to recognize same-sex marriage have made good policy
decisions. It is much narrower. It is about whether a State’s
decision not to recognize same-sex marriage violates the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the
judicial response must be limited to an analysis applying
established constitutional principles.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has always recognized that
“marriage” is based on the “mutual agreement of a man and a
woman to marry each other,” Burke v. Shaver, 23 S.E. 749, 749
(Va. 1895), and that a marriage’s purposes include “establishing
a family, the continuance of the race, the propagation of
children, and the general good of society,” Alexander v.
Kuykendall, 63 S.E.2d 746, 748 (Va. 1951). In recent years, it
codified that understanding in several statutes, which also
explicitly exclude from the definition of “marriage” the union
of two men or two women. Moreover, in 2006 the people of
Virginia amended the Commonwealth’s Constitution to define
marriage as only between “one man and one woman.” Va. Const.
art. I, § 15-A.
The plaintiffs, who are in long-term same-sex
relationships, are challenging the constitutionality of
Virginia’s marriage laws under the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The district court
sustained their challenge, concluding that the plaintiffs have a
fundamental right to marry each other under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore that any
regulation of that right is subject to strict scrutiny.
Concluding that Virginia’s definition of marriage failed even
“to display a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose and
so must be viewed as constitutionally infirm,” the court struck
down Virginia’s marriage laws as unconstitutional and enjoined
their enforcement. Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 482
(E.D. Va. 2014).
The majority agrees. It concludes that the fundamental
right to marriage includes a right to same-sex marriage and that
therefore Virginia’s marriage laws must be reviewed under strict
scrutiny. It holds that Virginia has failed to advance a
compelling state interest justifying its definition of marriage
as between only a man and a woman. In reaching this conclusion,
however, the majority has failed to conduct the necessary
constitutional analysis. Rather, it has simply declared
syllogistically that because “marriage” is a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause and “same-sex marriage” is a
form of marriage, Virginia’s laws declining to recognize same-
65
sex marriage infringe the fundamental right to marriage and are
therefore unconstitutional.
Stated more particularly, the majority’s approach begins
with the parties’ agreement that “marriage” is a fundamental
right. Ante at 40. From there, the majority moves to the
proposition that “the right to marry is an expansive liberty
interest,” ante at 41, “that is not circumscribed based on the
characteristics of the individuals seeking to exercise that
right,” ante at 42-43. For support, it notes that the Supreme
Court has struck down state restrictions prohibiting interracial
marriage, see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); prohibiting
prison inmates from marrying without special approval, see
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); and prohibiting persons
owing child support from marrying, see Zablocki v. Redhail, 434
U.S. 374 (1978). It then declares, ipse dixit, that “the
fundamental right to marry encompasses the right to same-sex
marriage” and is thus protected by the substantive component of
the Due Process Clause. Ante at 41. In reaching this
conclusion, the majority “decline[s] the Proponents’ invitation
to characterize the right at issue in this case as the right to
same-sex marriage rather than simply the right to marry.” Ante
at 44. And in doing so, it explicitly bypasses the relevant
constitutional analysis required by Washington v. Glucksberg,
521 U.S. 702 (1997), stating that a Glucksberg analysis is not
66
necessary because no new fundamental right is being recognized.
Ante at 41-42.
This analysis is fundamentally flawed because it fails to
take into account that the “marriage” that has long been
recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right is
distinct from the newly proposed relationship of a “same-sex
marriage.” And this failure is even more pronounced by the
majority’s acknowledgment that same-sex marriage is a new notion
that has not been recognized “for most of our country’s
history.” Ante at 41. Moreover, the majority fails to explain
how this new notion became incorporated into the traditional
definition of marriage except by linguistic manipulation. Thus,
the majority never asks the question necessary to finding a
fundamental right -- whether same-sex marriage is a right that
is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and
“implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither
liberty nor justice would exist if [it was] sacrificed.”
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (quoting Moore v. East Cleveland,
431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion); Palko v.
Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325-26 (1937)) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
At bottom, in holding that same-sex marriage is encompassed
by the traditional right to marry, the majority avoids the
necessary constitutional analysis, concluding simply and broadly
67
that the fundamental “right to marry” -- by everyone and to
anyone -- may not be infringed. And it does not anticipate or
address the problems that this approach causes, failing to
explain, for example, why this broad right to marry, as the
majority defines it, does not also encompass the “right” of a
father to marry his daughter or the “right” of any person to
marry multiple partners.
If the majority were to recognize and address the
distinction between the two relationships -- the traditional one
and the new one -- as it must, it would simply be unable to
reach the conclusion that it has reached.
I respectfully submit that, for the reasons that follow,
Virginia was well within its constitutional authority to adhere
to its traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man
and a woman and to exclude from that definition the union of two
men or two women. I would also agree that the U.S. Constitution
does not prohibit a State from defining marriage to include
same-sex marriage, as many States have done. Accordingly, I
would reverse the judgment of the district court and uphold
Virginia’s marriage laws.
I
As the majority has observed, state recognition of same-sex
marriage is a new phenomenon. Its history began in the early
68
2000s with the recognition in some States of civil unions. See,
e.g., Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 1201-1202 (2000); D.C. Code §
32-701 (1992) (effective in 2002); Cal. Fam. Code §§ 297-298(2003); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 26:8A-2 (2003); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.
§ 46b-38nn (2006), invalidated by Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Pub.
Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008). And the notion of same-sex
marriage itself first gained traction in 2003, when the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the
Commonwealth’s prohibition on issuing marriage licenses to same-
sex couples violated the State’s Constitution -- the first
decision holding that same-sex couples had a right to marry.
See Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 968
(Mass. 2003). In 2009, Vermont became the first State to enact
legislation recognizing same-sex marriage, and, since then, 11
other States and the District of Columbia have also done so.
See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-20 to 46b-20a; Del. Code Ann. tit.
13, § 101; D.C. Code § 46-401; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-1; 750 Ill.
Comp. Stat. 5/201; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 650-A; Md. Code
Ann., Fam. Law §§ 2-201 to 2-202; Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 517.01 to
517.03; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 457:1-a to 457:2; N.Y. Dom. Rel.
Law § 10-a; R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-1 et seq.; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit.
15, § 8; Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.04.010 to 26.04.020. Moreover,
seven other States currently allow same-sex marriage as a result
of court rulings. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 265269
(2013); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009); Goodridge,
798 N.E.2d 941; Garden State Equality v. Dow, 79 A.3d 1036 (N.J.
2013); Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2013); Geiger v.
Kitzhaber, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, No. 6:13-CV-01834-MC, 2014 WL
2054264 (D. Or. May 19, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, ___ F. Supp.
2d ___, No. 1:13-CV-1861, 2014 WL 2058105 (M.D. Pa. May 20,
2014). This is indeed a recent phenomenon.
Virginia only recognizes marriage as between one man and
one woman, and, like a majority of States, it has codified this
view. See Va. Code Ann. § 20-45.2 (prohibiting same-sex
marriage and declining to recognize same-sex marriages conducted
in other States); id. § 20-45.3 (prohibiting civil unions and
similar arrangements between persons of the same sex). The bill
originally proposing what would become § 20-45.3 noted the basis
for Virginia’s legislative decision:
[H]uman marriage is a consummated two in one communion
of male and female persons made possible by sexual
differences which are reproductive in type, whether or
not they are reproductive in effect or motivation.
This present relationship recognizes the equality of
male and female persons, and antedates recorded
history.
Affirmation of Marriage Act, H.D. 751, 2004 Gen. Assembly, Reg.
Sess. (Va. 2004). The bill predicted that the recognition of
same-sex marriage would “radically transform the institution of
marriage with serious and harmful consequences to the social
order.” Id. Virginia also amended its Constitution in 2006 to
70
define marriage as only between “one man and one woman” and to
prohibit “a legal status for relationships of unmarried
individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities,
significance, or effects of marriage.” Va. Const. art. I, § 15-
A. The plaintiffs commenced this action to challenge the
constitutionality of Virginia’s marriage laws.
Plaintiffs Timothy B. Bostic and Tony C. London have lived
in a committed same-sex relationship since 1989 and have lived
in Virginia since 1991. The two desired to marry in Virginia,
and on July 1, 2013, when they applied for a marriage license at
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of
Norfolk, they were denied a license and told that same-sex
couples are ineligible to marry in Virginia. In their complaint
challenging Virginia’s marriage laws, they alleged that their
inability to marry has disadvantaged them in both economic and
personal ways -- it has prevented them from filing joint tax
returns, kept them from sharing health insurance on a tax-free
basis, and signaled that they are “less than” other couples in
Virginia.
Plaintiffs Carol Schall and Mary Townley likewise have
lived in a committed same-sex relationship since 1985 and have
lived in Virginia throughout their 29-year relationship. In
1998, Townley gave birth to a daughter, E.S.-T., whom Schall and
Townley have raised together, and in 2008, the two traveled to
71
California where they were lawfully married. They alleged in
their complaint that because Virginia does not recognize their
marriage as valid, they have been injured in several ways.
Schall is unable to legally adopt E.S.-T., and the two are
unable to share health insurance on a tax-free basis. The two
also claimed that they and E.S.-T. have experienced stigma as a
result of Virginia’s nonrecognition of their marriage.
The plaintiffs’ complaint, filed in July 2013, alleged that
Virginia’s marriage laws violate their constitutional rights
under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment. They named as defendants George E.
Schaefer, III, Clerk of Court for the Norfolk Circuit Court, and
Janet M. Rainey, the State Registrar of Vital Records. A third
Virginia official, Michèle B. McQuigg, Clerk of Court for the
Prince William County Circuit Court, was permitted to intervene
as a defendant. As elected circuit court clerks, Schaefer and
McQuigg are responsible for issuing individual marriage licenses
in the localities in which they serve. And Rainey, as the State
Registrar of Vital Records, is responsible for ensuring
compliance with Virginia’s marriage laws, including the laws
challenged in this case.
After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment,
Virginia underwent a change in administrations, and the newly
elected Attorney General of Virginia, Mark Herring, filed a
72
notice of a change in his office’s legal position on behalf of
his client, defendant Janet Rainey. His notice stated that
because, in his view, the laws at issue were unconstitutional,
his office would no longer defend them on behalf of Rainey. He
noted, however, that Rainey would continue to enforce the laws
until the court’s ruling. The other officials have continued to
defend Virginia’s marriage laws, and, for convenience, I refer
to the defendants herein as “Virginia.”
Following a hearing, the district court, by an order and
memorandum dated February 14, 2014, granted the plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment and denied Virginia’s cross-motion.
The court concluded that same-sex partners have a fundamental
right to marry each other under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, thus requiring that Virginia’s marriage
laws restricting that right be narrowly drawn to further a
compelling state interest. It concluded that the laws did not
meet that requirement and, indeed, “fail[ed] to display a
rational relationship to a legitimate purpose, and so must be
viewed as constitutionally infirm under even the least onerous
level of scrutiny.” Bostic, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 482. Striking
down Virginia’s marriage laws, the court also issued an order
enjoining their enforcement but stayed that order pending
appeal. This appeal followed.
73
II
The plaintiffs contend that, as same-sex partners, they
have a fundamental right to marry that is protected by the
substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (prohibiting any State
from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law”), and that Virginia’s laws defining
marriage as only between a man and a woman and excluding same-
sex marriage infringe on that right. The constitutional
analysis for adjudging their claim is well established.
The Constitution contains no language directly protecting
the right to same-sex marriage or even traditional marriage.
Any right to same-sex marriage, therefore, would have to be
found, through court interpretation, as a substantive component
of the Due Process Clause. See Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992) (“Although a
literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only
the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty,
for at least 105 years . . . the Clause has been understood to
contain a substantive component as well”).
The substantive component of the Due Process Clause only
protects “fundamental” liberty interests. And the Supreme Court
has held that liberty interests are only fundamental if they
are, “objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and
74
tradition,’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’
such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were
sacrificed.’” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720-21 (citation omitted)
(quoting Moore, 431 U.S. at 503 (plurality opinion); Palko, 302
U.S. at 325-26). When determining whether such a fundamental
right exists, a court must always make “a ‘careful description’
of the asserted fundamental liberty interest.” Id. at 721
(emphasis added) (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302
(1993)). This “careful description” involves characterizing the
right asserted in its narrowest terms. Thus, in Glucksberg,
where the Court was presented with a due process challenge to a
state statute banning assisted suicide, the Court narrowly
characterized the right being asserted in the following manner:
The Court of Appeals stated that “[p]roperly analyzed,
the first issue to be resolved is whether there is a
liberty interest in determining the time and manner of
one’s death,” or, in other words, “[i]s there a right
to die?” Similarly, respondents assert a “liberty to
choose how to die” and a right to “control of one’s
final days,” and describe the asserted liberty as “the
right to choose a humane, dignified death,” and “the
liberty to shape death.” As noted above, we have a
tradition of carefully formulating the interest at
stake in substantive-due-process cases. . . . The
Washington statute at issue in this case prohibits
“aid[ing] another person to attempt suicide,” and,
thus, the question before us is whether the “liberty”
specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes
a right to commit suicide which itself includes a
right to assistance in doing so.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 722-23 (alterations in original)
(emphasis added) (citations omitted).
75
Under this formulation, because the Virginia laws at issue
prohibit “marriage between persons of the same sex,” Va. Code
Ann. § 20-45.2, “the question before us is whether the ‘liberty’
specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes a right”
to same-sex marriage. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 723; see also
Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1095 (D. Haw.
2012) (“[M]issing from Plaintiffs’ asserted ‘right to marry the
person of one’s choice’ is its centerpiece: the right to marry
someone of the same gender”).
When a fundamental right is so identified, then any statute
restricting the right is subject to strict scrutiny and must be
“narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
Flores, 507 U.S. at 302. Such scrutiny is extremely difficult
for a law to withstand, and, as such, the Supreme Court has
noted that courts must be extremely cautious in recognizing
fundamental rights because doing so ordinarily removes freedom
of choice from the hands of the people:
[W]e “ha[ve] always been reluctant to expand the
concept of substantive due process because guideposts
for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered
area are scarce and open-ended.” By extending
constitutional protection to an asserted right or
liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the
matter outside the arena of public debate and
legislative action. We must therefore “exercise the
utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground
in this field,” lest the liberty protected by the Due
Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy
preferences of the Members of this Court.
76
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720 (second alteration in original)
(emphasis added) (quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503
U.S. 115, 125 (1992)).
The plaintiffs in this case, as well as the majority,
recognize that narrowly defining the asserted liberty interest
would require them to demonstrate a new fundamental right to
same-sex marriage, which they cannot do. Thus, they have made
no attempt to argue that same-sex marriage is, “objectively,
deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and
“implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Glucksberg, 521
U.S. at 720-21 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, they
have acknowledged that recognition of same-sex marriage is a
recent development. See ante at 41; see also United States v.
Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2689 (2013) (“Until recent years, many
citizens had not even considered the possibility of [same-sex
marriage]” (emphasis added)); id. at 2715 (Alito, J.,
dissenting) (noting that it is “beyond dispute that the right to
same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history
and tradition”); Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 57 (Haw. 1993)
(“[W]e do not believe that a right to same-sex marriage is so
rooted in the traditions and collective conscience of our people
that failure to recognize it would violate the fundamental
principles of liberty and justice that lie at the base of all
our civil and political institutions”).
77
Instead, the plaintiffs and the majority argue that the
fundamental right to marriage that has previously been
recognized by the Supreme Court is a broad right that should
apply to the plaintiffs without the need to recognize a new
fundamental right to same-sex marriage. They argue that this
approach is supported by the fact that the Supreme Court did not
narrowly define the right to marriage in its decisions in
Loving, 388 U.S. at 12; Turner, 482 U.S. at 94-96; or Zablocki,
434 U.S. at 383-86.
It is true that, in those cases, the Court did not
recognize new, separate fundamental rights to fit the factual
circumstances in each case. For example, in Loving, the Court
did not examine whether interracial marriage was, objectively,
deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition. But it was
not required to do so. Each of those cases involved a couple
asserting a right to enter into a traditional marriage of the
type that has always been recognized since the beginning of the
Nation -- a union between one man and one woman. While the
context for asserting the right varied in each of those cases,
it varied only in ways irrelevant to the concept of marriage.
The type of relationship sought was always the traditional, man-
woman relationship to which the term “marriage” was theretofore
always assumed to refer. Thus, none of the cases cited by the
plaintiffs and relied on by the majority involved the assertion
78
of a brand new liberty interest. To the contrary, they involved
the assertion of one of the oldest and most fundamental liberty
interests in our society.
To now define the previously recognized fundamental right
to “marriage” as a concept that includes the new notion of
“same-sex marriage” amounts to a dictionary jurisprudence, which
defines terms as convenient to attain an end.
It is true that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships
share many attributes, and, therefore, marriages involving those
relationships would, to a substantial extent, be similar. Two
persons who are attracted to each other physically and
emotionally and who love each other could publicly promise to
live with each other thereafter in a mutually desirable
relationship. These aspects are the same whether the persons
are of the same sex or different sexes. Moreover, both
relationships could successfully function to raise children,
although children in a same-sex relationship would come from one
partner or from adoption. But there are also significant
distinctions between the relationships that can justify
differential treatment by lawmakers.
Only the union of a man and a woman has the capacity to
produce children and thus to carry on the species. And more
importantly, only such a union creates a biological family unit
that also gives rise to a traditionally stable political unit.
79
Every person’s identity includes the person’s particular
biological relationships, which create unique and meaningful
bonds of kinship that are extraordinarily strong and enduring
and that have been afforded a privileged place in political
order throughout human history. Societies have accordingly
enacted laws promoting the family unit -- such as those relating
to sexual engagement, marriage rites, divorce, inheritance, name
and title, and economic matters. And many societies have found
familial bonds so critical that they have elevated marriage to
be a sacred institution trapped with religious rituals. In
these respects, the traditional man-woman relationship is
unique.
Thus, when the Supreme Court has recognized, through the
years, that the right to marry is a fundamental right, it has
emphasized the procreative and social ordering aspects of
traditional marriage. For example, it has said: “[Marriage] is
an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the
public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the
family and of society, without which there would be neither
civilization nor progress,” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211
(1888) (emphasis added); Marriage is “one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the race,” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex
rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); “It is not surprising
80
that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of
importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth,
childrearing, and family relationships. . . . [Marriage] is the
foundation of the family in our society,” Zablocki, 434 U.S. at
386.
Because there exist deep, fundamental differences between
traditional and same-sex marriage, the plaintiffs and the
majority err by conflating the two relationships under the
loosely drawn rubric of “the right to marriage.” Rather, to
obtain constitutional protection, they would have to show that
the right to same-sex marriage is itself deeply rooted in our
Nation’s history. They have not attempted to do so and could
not succeed if they were so to attempt.
In an effort to bridge the obvious differences between the
traditional relationship and the new same-sex relationship, the
plaintiffs argue that the fundamental right to marriage “has
always been based on, and defined by, the constitutional liberty
to select the partner of one’s choice.” (Emphasis added). They
rely heavily on Loving to assert this claim. In Loving, the
Court held that a state regulation restricting interracial
marriage infringed on the fundamental right to marriage.
Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. But nowhere in Loving did the Court
suggest that the fundamental right to marry includes the
unrestricted right to marry whomever one chooses, as the
81
plaintiffs claim. Indeed, Loving explicitly relied on Skinner
and Murphy, and both of those cases discussed marriage in
traditional, procreative terms. Id.This reading of Loving is fortified by the Court’s summary
dismissal of Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971),
appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), just five years after
Loving was decided. In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court
interpreted a state statute’s use of the term “marriage” to be
one of common usage meaning a union “between persons of the
opposite sex” and thus not including same-sex marriage. Id. at
186. On appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the case summarily
“for want of a substantial federal question.” 409 U.S. at 810.
The Court’s action in context indicates that the Court did not
view Loving or the cases that preceded it as providing a
fundamental right to an unrestricted choice of marriage partner.
Otherwise, the state court’s decision in Baker would indeed have
presented a substantial federal question.
In short, Loving simply held that race, which is completely
unrelated to the institution of marriage, could not be the basis
of marital restrictions. See Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. To
stretch Loving’s holding to say that the right to marry is not
limited by gender and sexual orientation is to ignore the
inextricable, biological link between marriage and procreation
that the Supreme Court has always recognized. See Windsor, 133
82
S. Ct. at 2689 (recognizing that throughout history, “marriage
between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most
people as essential to the very definition of that term and to
its role and function”). The state regulation struck down in
Loving, like those in Zablocki and Turner, had no relationship
to the foundational purposes of marriage, while the gender of
the individuals in a marriage clearly does. Thus, the majority
errs, as did the district court, by interpreting the Supreme
Court’s marriage cases as establishing a right that includes
same-sex marriage.
The plaintiffs also largely ignore the problem with their
position that if the fundamental right to marriage is based on
“the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s
choice,” as they contend, then that liberty would also extend to
individuals seeking state recognition of other types of
relationships that States currently restrict, such as polygamous
or incestuous relationships. Cf. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620,
648-50 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Such an extension would
be a radical shift in our understanding of marital
relationships. Laws restricting polygamy are foundational to
the Union itself, having been a condition on the entrance of
Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah into statehood. Id.While the plaintiffs do attempt to assure us that such laws are
safe because “there are weighty government interests underlying”
83
them, such an argument does not bear on the question of whether
the right is fundamental. The government’s interests would
instead be relevant only to whether the restriction could meet
the requisite standard of review. And because laws prohibiting
polygamous or incestuous marriages restrict individuals’ right
to choose whom they would like to marry, they would, under the
plaintiffs’ approach, have to be examined under strict scrutiny.
Perhaps the government’s interest would be strong enough to
enable such laws to survive strict scrutiny, but regardless,
today’s decision would truly be a sweeping one if it could be
understood to mean that individuals have a fundamental right to
enter into a marriage with any person, or any people, of their
choosing.
At bottom, the fundamental right to marriage does not
include a right to same-sex marriage. Under the Glucksberg
analysis that we are thus bound to conduct, there is no new
fundamental right to same-sex marriage. Virginia’s laws
restricting marriage to man-woman relationships must therefore
be upheld if there is any rational basis for the laws.
III
Under rational-basis review, courts are required to give
heavy deference to legislatures. The standard
simply requires courts to determine whether the
classification in question is, at a minimum,
84
rationally related to legitimate governmental goals.
In other words, the fit between the enactment and the
public purposes behind it need not be mathematically
precise. As long as [the legislature] has a
reasonable basis for adopting the classification,
which can include “rational speculation unsupported by
evidence or empirical data,” the statute will pass
constitutional muster. The rational basis standard
thus embodies an idea critical to the continuing
vitality of our democracy: that courts are not
empowered to “sit as a superlegislature to judge the
wisdom or desirability of legislative policy
determinations.”
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 734 F.3d 344, 347-48 (4th Cir. 2013) (emphasis
added) (citations omitted) (quoting FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc.,
508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993); City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S.
297, 303 (1976)). Statutes subject to rational-basis review
“bear[] a strong presumption of validity, and those attacking
the rationality of the legislative classification have the
burden ‘to negative every conceivable basis which might support
[them].’” Beach Commc’ns, 508 U.S. at 314-15 (emphasis added)
(citation omitted) (quoting Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts
Co., 410 U.S. 356, 364 (1973)).
In contending that there is a rational basis for its
marriage laws, Virginia has emphasized that children are born
only to one man and one woman and that marriage provides a
family structure by which to nourish and raise those children.
It claims that a biological family is a more stable environment,
and it renounces any interest in encouraging same-sex marriage.
It argues that the purpose of its marriage laws “is to channel
85
the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships
into enduring marital unions so that if any children are born,
they are more likely to be raised in stable family units.”
(Emphasis omitted). Virginia highlights especially marriage’s
tendency to promote stability in the event of unplanned
pregnancies, asserting that it has “a compelling interest in
addressing the particular concerns associated with the birth of
unplanned children. . . . [C]hildren born from unplanned
pregnancies where their mother and father are not married to
each other are at significant risk of being raised outside
stable family units headed by their mother and father jointly.”
Virginia states that its justifications for promoting
traditional marriage also explain its lack of interest in
promoting same-sex marriage. It maintains that a traditional
marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution
. . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological
kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting),
and that same-sex marriage prioritizes the emotions and sexual
attractions of the two partners without any necessary link to
reproduction. It asserts that it has no interest in “licensing
adults’ love.”
The plaintiffs accept that family stability is a legitimate
state goal, but they argue that licensing same-sex relationships
will not burden Virginia’s achievement of that goal. They
86
contend that “there is simply no evidence or reason to believe
that prohibiting gay men and lesbians from marrying will
increase ‘responsible procreation’ among heterosexuals.”
But this argument does not negate any of the rational
justifications for Virginia’s legislation. States are permitted
to selectively provide benefits to only certain groups when
providing those same benefits to other groups would not further
the State’s ultimate goals. See Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S.
361, 383 (1974) (“When . . . the inclusion of one group promotes
a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other
groups would not, we cannot say that the statute's
classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is
invidiously discriminatory”). Here, the Commonwealth’s goal of
ensuring that unplanned children are raised in stable homes is
furthered only by offering the benefits of marriage to opposite-
sex couples. As Virginia correctly asserts, “the relevant
inquiry here is not whether excluding same-sex couples from
marriage furthers [Virginia’s] interest in steering man-woman
couples into marriage.” Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether
also recognizing same-sex marriages would further Virginia’s
interests. With regard to its interest in ensuring stable
families in the event of unplanned pregnancies, it would not.
The plaintiffs reply that even if this is so, such “line-
drawing” only makes sense if the resources at issue are scarce,
87
justifying the State’s limited provision of those resources.
They argue that because “[m]arriage licenses . . . are not a
remotely scarce commodity,” the line-drawing done by Virginia’s
marriage laws is irrational. But this fundamentally
misunderstands the nature of marriage benefits. When the
Commonwealth grants a marriage, it does not simply give the
couple a piece of paper and a title. Rather, it provides a
substantial subsidy to the married couple -- economic benefits
that, the plaintiffs repeatedly assert, are being denied them.
For example, married couples are permitted to file state income
taxes jointly, lowering their tax rates. See Va. Code Ann.
§ 58.1-324. Although indirect, such benefits are clearly
subsidies that come at a cost to the Commonwealth. Virginia is
willing to provide these subsidies because they encourage
opposite-sex couples to marry, which tends to provide children
from unplanned pregnancies with a more stable environment.
Under Johnson, the Commonwealth is not obligated to similarly
subsidize same-sex marriages, since doing so could not possibly
further its interest. This is no different from the subsidies
provided in other cases where the Supreme Court has upheld line-
drawing, such as Medicare benefits, Matthews v. Diaz, 426 U.S.
67, 83-84 (1976), or veterans’ educational benefits, Johnson,
415 U.S. at 383.
88
As an additional argument, Virginia maintains that marriage
is a “[c]omplex social institution[]” with a “set of norms,
rules, patterns, and expectations that powerfully (albeit often
unconsciously) affect people’s choices, actions, and
perspectives.” It asserts that discarding the traditional
definition of marriage will have far-reaching consequences that
cannot easily be predicted, including “sever[ing] the inherent
link between procreation . . . and marriage . . . [and] in
turn . . . powerfully convey[ing] that marriage exists to
advance adult desires rather than [to] serv[e] children’s
needs.”
The plaintiffs agree that changing the definition of
marriage may have unforeseen social effects, but they argue that
such predictions should not be enough to save Virginia’s
marriage laws because similar justifications were rejected in
Loving. The Loving Court, however, was not applying rational-
basis review. See Loving, 388 U.S. at 11-12. We are on a
different footing here. Under rational-basis review,
legislative choices “may be based on rational speculation
unsupported by evidence or empirical data.” Beach Commc’ns, 508
U.S. at 315. “Sound policymaking often requires legislators to
forecast future events and to anticipate the likely impact of
these events based on deductions and inferences for which
complete empirical support may be unavailable.” Turner Broad.
89
Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 665 (1994) (plurality opinion).
And the legislature “is far better equipped than the judiciary”
to make these evaluations and ultimately decide on a course of
action based on its predictions. Id. at 665-66. In enacting
its marriage laws, Virginia predicted that changing the
definition of marriage would have a negative effect on children
and on the family structure. Although other States do not share
those concerns, such evaluations were nonetheless squarely
within the province of the Commonwealth’s legislature and its
citizens, who voted to amend Virginia’s Constitution in 2006.
Virginia has undoubtedly articulated sufficient rational
bases for its marriage laws, and I would find that those bases
constitutionally justify the laws. Those laws are grounded on
the biological connection of men and women; the potential for
their having children; the family order needed in raising
children; and, on a larger scale, the political order resulting
from stable family units. Moreover, I would add that the
traditional marriage relationship encourages a family structure
that is intergenerational, giving children not only a structure
in which to be raised but also an identity and a strong
relational context. The marriage of a man and a woman thus
rationally promotes a correlation between biological order and
political order. Because Virginia’s marriage laws are
90
rationally related to its legitimate purposes, they withstand
rational-basis scrutiny under the Due Process Clause.
IV
The majority does not substantively address the plaintiffs’
second argument -- that Virginia’s marriage laws invidiously
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause -- since it finds that the laws
infringe on the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marriage. But
because I find no fundamental right is infringed by the laws, I
also address discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
The Equal Protection Clause, which forbids any State from
“deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, prohibits
invidious discrimination among classes of persons. Some
classifications -- such as those based on race, alienage, or
national origin -- are “so seldom relevant to the achievement of
any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such
considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy --
a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or
deserving as others.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). Any laws based on such “suspect”
classifications are subject to strict scrutiny. See id. In a
similar vein, classifications based on gender are “quasi-
91
suspect” and call for “intermediate scrutiny” because they
“frequently bear[] no relation to ability to perform or
contribute to society” and thus “generally provide[] no sensible
ground for differential treatment.” Id. at 440-41 (quoting
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973) (plurality
opinion)); see also Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976).
Laws subject to intermediate scrutiny must be substantially
related to an important government objective. See United States
v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996).
But when a regulation adversely affects members of a class
that is not suspect or quasi-suspect, the regulation is
“presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the
classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a
legitimate state interest.” City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440(emphasis added). Moreover, the Supreme Court has made it clear
that
where individuals in the group affected by a law have
distinguishing characteristics relevant to interests
the State has the authority to implement, the courts
have been very reluctant, as they should be in our
federal system and with our respect for the separation
of powers, to closely scrutinize legislative choices
as to whether, how, and to what extent those interests
should be pursued. In such cases, the Equal
Protection Clause requires only a rational means to
serve a legitimate end.
Id. at 441-42 (emphasis added). This is based on the
understanding that “equal protection of the laws must coexist
92
with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies
for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to
various groups or persons.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 631.
The plaintiffs contend that Virginia’s marriage laws should
be subjected to some level of heightened scrutiny because they
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet they
concede that neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit
has ever applied heightened scrutiny to a classification based
on sexual orientation. They urge this court to do so for the
first time. Governing precedent, however, counsels otherwise.
In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court did not employ any
heightened level of scrutiny in evaluating a Colorado
constitutional amendment that prohibited state and local
governments from enacting legislation that would allow persons
to claim “any minority status, quota preferences, protected
status, or . . . discrimination” based on sexual orientation.
Romer, 517 U.S. at 624. In holding the amendment
unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court
applied rational-basis review. See id. at 631-33.
And the Supreme Court made no change as to the appropriate
level of scrutiny in its more recent decision in Windsor, which
held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
The Court was presented an opportunity to alter the Romer
standard but did not do so. Although it did not state the level
93
of scrutiny being applied, it did explicitly rely on rational-
basis cases like Romer and Department of Agriculture v. Moreno,
413 U.S. 528 (1973). See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693. In his
dissenting opinion in Windsor, Justice Scalia thus noted, “As
nearly as I can tell, the Court agrees [that rational-basis
review applies]; its opinion does not apply strict scrutiny, and
its central propositions are taken from rational-basis cases
like Moreno.” Id. at 2706 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Finally, we have concluded that rational-basis review
applies to classifications based on sexual orientation. See
Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 731-32 (4th Cir. 2002). In Veney,
a prisoner filed a § 1983 action alleging that he had been
discriminated against on the basis of sexual preference and
gender. Id. at 729-30. We noted that the plaintiff “[did] not
allege that he [was] a member of a suspect class. Rather, he
claim[ed] that he ha[d] been discriminated against on the basis
of sexual preference and gender. Outside the prison context,
the former is subject to rational basis review, see Romer v.
Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-32 (1996).” Id. at 731-32 (footnote
omitted).
The vast majority of other courts of appeals have reached
the same conclusion. See Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, 61 (1st
Cir. 2008) (“Romer nowhere suggested that the Court recognized a
new suspect class. Absent additional guidance from the Supreme
94
Court, we join our sister circuits in declining to read Romer as
recognizing homosexuals as a suspect class for equal protection
purposes”); Price-Cornelison v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 1103, 1113-14 &
n.9 (10th Cir. 2008) (“A government official
can . . . distinguish between its citizens on the basis of
sexual orientation, if that classification bears a rational
relation to some legitimate end” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Citizens for Equal Prot. v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859,
865-66 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing Romer and reaching the
conclusion that “[t]hough the most relevant precedents are
murky, we conclude for a number of reasons that [Nebraska’s
same-sex marriage ban] should receive rational-basis review
under the Equal Protection Clause, rather than a heightened
level of judicial scrutiny”); Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503,
532 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[A] state violates the Equal Protection
Clause if it disadvantages homosexuals for reasons lacking any
rational relationship to legitimate governmental aims”); Lofton
v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 818
(11th Cir. 2004) (“[A]ll of our sister circuits that have
considered the question have declined to treat homosexuals as a
suspect class. Because the present case involves neither a
fundamental right nor a suspect class, we review
the . . . statute under the rational-basis standard” (footnote
omitted)); Equal. Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of
95
Cincinnati, 128 F.3d 289, 294, 300 (6th Cir. 1997) (applying
rational-basis review in upholding a city charter amendment
restricting homosexual rights and stating that in Romer, the
Court “did not assess Colorado Amendment 2 under ‘strict
scrutiny’ or ‘intermediate scrutiny’ standards, but instead
ultimately applied ‘rational relationship’ strictures to that
enactment and resolved that the Colorado state constitutional
provision did not invade any fundamental right and did not
target any suspect class or quasi-suspect class”); Ben-Shalom v.
Marsh, 881 F.2d 454, 464 (7th Cir. 1989) (applying rational-
basis review prior to the announcement of Romer); Woodward v.
United States, 871 F.2d 1068, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The
Supreme Court has identified only three suspect classes: racial
status, national ancestry and ethnic original, and alienage.
Two other classifications have been identified by the Court as
quasi-suspect: gender and illegitimacy. [Plaintiff] would have
this court add homosexuality to that list. This we decline to
do” (citations and footnote omitted)). But see SmithKline
Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 481 (9th Cir. 2014)
(applying heightened scrutiny to a Batson challenge that was
based on sexual orientation); Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d
169, 180-85 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding intermediate scrutiny
appropriate in assessing the constitutionality of Section 3 of
the Defense of Marriage Act).
96
Thus, following Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent,
I would hold that Virginia’s marriage laws are subject to
rational-basis review. Applying that standard, I conclude that
there is a rational basis for the laws, as explained in Part
III, above. At bottom, I agree with Justice Alito’s reasoning
that “[i]n asking the court to determine that [Virginia’s
marriage laws are] subject to and violate[] heightened scrutiny,
[the plaintiffs] thus ask us to rule that the presence of two
members of the opposite sex is as rationally related to marriage
as white skin is to voting or a Y-chromosome is to the ability
to administer an estate. That is a striking request and one
that unelected judges should pause before granting.” Windsor,
133 S. Ct. at 2717-18 (Alito, J., dissenting).
V
Whether to recognize same-sex marriage is an ongoing and
highly engaged political debate taking place across the Nation,
and the States are divided on the issue. The majority of courts
have struck down statutes that deny recognition of same-sex
marriage, doing so almost exclusively on the idea that same-sex
marriage is encompassed by the fundamental right to marry that
is protected by the Due Process Clause. While I express no
viewpoint on the merits of the policy debate, I do strongly
disagree with the assertion that same-sex marriage is subject to
97
the same constitutional protections as the traditional right to
marry.
Because there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage
and there are rational reasons for not recognizing it, just as
there are rational reasons for recognizing it, I conclude that
we, in the Third Branch, must allow the States to enact
legislation on the subject in accordance with their political
processes. The U.S. Constitution does not, in my judgment,
restrict the States’ policy choices on this issue. If given the
choice, some States will surely recognize same-sex marriage and
some will surely not. But that is, to be sure, the beauty of
federalism.
I would reverse the district court’s judgment and defer to
Virginia’s political choice in defining marriage as only between
one man and one woman.
98