2:14-cv-02518 #86

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KAIL MARIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUSAN MOSIER, M.D., in her official capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-cv-2518
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
Challenged Laws
1.
In their First Amended Complaint, Doc. 52, 3, Plaintiffs challenge the following
statutes and constitutional amendment, as well as any other law or policy that prohibits same-sex
couples from marrying or denies legal recognition to their marriages:
a. KAN. CONST., art. 15, 16: (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law
as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only.
All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state
and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by
the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.
b. Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2501: The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a
civil contract between two parties who are of opposite sex. All other marriages are
declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. The consent
of the parties is essential. The marriage ceremony may be regarded either as a civ-
il ceremony or as a religious sacrament, but the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained or abrogated as provided by law.
c. Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2508: All marriages contracted without this state, which
would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted,
shall be valid in all courts and places in this state. It is the strong public policy of
this state only to recognize as valid marriages from other states that are between a
man and a woman.
Marriage Licensure Claims
2.
Plaintiffs Kail Marie and Michelle L. Brown have been together in a committed,
loving same-sex relationship for more than twenty-one years. They live together in Lecompton,
Douglas County, Kansas, and wish to marry each other in Kansas. Second Declaration of Kail
Marie, 2; Second Declaration of Michelle L. Brown, 2.
3.
Plaintiffs Kerry Wilks and Donna DiTrani have been together in a committed, lov-
ing same-sex relationship for more than five years. They live together in Wichita, Sedgwick
County, Kansas, and wish to marry each other in Kansas. Second Declaration of Kerry Wilks,
Ph.D., 2; and Second Declaration of Donna DiTrani, 2.
4.
Susan Mosier, M.D., is the current Secretary of KDHE. See KDHE website,
http://www.kdheks.gov/administration/ (last checked Feb. 9, 2015); KDHE press release dated

Dec. 19, 2014, available at http://www.kdheks.gov/news/web_archives/2014/12192014.htm
(last checked Feb. 9, 20115).1
Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that Defendant Mosier is the Secretary
of the Kansas Department of Health & Environment and of other similar facts alleged in this
brief that can be verified by reference to governmental websites. The Tenth Circuit has held that
it is appropriate for trial courts to take judicial notice of factual information found on the
worldwide web. OToole v. Northrup Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007).
2
5.
On October 10, 2014, when Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in this case,
Defendant Robert Moser, M.D., was the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Complaint, Doc. 1, 8; Answer of Defendant Moser, Doc. 48, 5.
6.
The official duties of the Secretary of KDHE include directing and supervising
Kansass system of vital records. See Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-6501 (creation of office of Secretary
of KDHE); 75-6502 (transfer of powers & duties to office of Secretary of KDHE); 756504(a) (transfer of duties regarding vital records, generally); and 65-2402 to 65-2406 (Secretarys duties with regard to vital records).
7.
With respect to marriage licenses issued in the State of Kansas, the Secretary of
KDHE must: (a) supervise the registration of all marriage records issued in the State of Kansas,
Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2507; (b) furnish forms used throughout the State of Kansas for the marriage license process, Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2509; and (c) maintain a publicly available vital records index of marriages and issue certified copies of marriage licenses upon request, Kan. Stat.
Ann. 23-2512 (providing that such certified copies constitute prima facie evidence of the marriages in all courts and for all purposes).
8.
Douglas A. Hamilton is the Clerk of the District Court for the 7th Judicial District,
also known as the Douglas County District Court, which sits in Lawrence, Kansas. Complaint,
Doc. 1, 9; Answer of Defendants Hamilton & Lumbreras, Doc. 49, 5.
9.
Defendant Bernie Lumbreras is the Clerk of the District Court for the 18th Judi-
cial District, also known as the Sedgwick County District Court, which sits in Wichita, Kansas.
Complaint, Doc. 1, 10; Answer of Defendants Hamilton & Lumbreras, Doc. 49, 5.
10.
Kansas law provides that [t]he clerks of the district courts or judges thereof,
when applied to for a marriage license by any person who is one of the parties to the proposed
3
marriage and who is legally entitled to a marriage license, shall issue a marriage license[.] Kan.
Stat. Ann. 23-2505(a).
11.
In Kansas, district court clerks, including Defendants Hamilton and Lumbreras,
have the following duties with respect to the issuance of marriage licenses: (a) requiring people
contemplating marriage to state under oath the information required for the marriage record and
delivering certificates of that information to the parties along with the marriage license, Kan.
Stat. Ann. 23-2505(d & e); (b) levying and collecting a tax on each marriage license, Kan. Stat.
Ann. 23-2510; (c) filing and preserving the originals and indexing the names of both spouses
upon return of the marriage license and certificate from the officiant, Kan. Stat. Ann. 232511(a) & 23-2514; and (d) forwarding a record of each marriage to the Secretary of the KDHE,
Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2511(a). See generally Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2501 to 23-2518.
12.
Plaintiffs Marie and Brown and Plaintiffs Wilks and DiTrani meet all of the re-
quirements Kansas imposes for the issuance of a marriage license except that these Plaintiffs
want to marry a person of the same sex. Second Declarations of Marie, Brown, Wilks & DiTrani,
4.
13.
On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff Kail Marie appeared in person at the office of the
Clerk of the District Court of Douglas County, Kansas, requested and was given a marriage license application which was returned to the deputy clerk who then gave Plaintiff Marie a marriage license worksheet along with the instruction to return no sooner than Tuesday, October 14,
2014 absent waiver of the three-day statutory waiting period, or words to that effect. Complaint,
Doc. 1, 16; Answer of Defendants Hamilton & Lumbreras, Doc. 49, 7. See also Second Declaration of Kail Marie, 5.
14.
On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Chief Judge Robert W. Fairchild of the Seventh
Judicial District issued Administrative Order 14-13. See Doc. 49-1, certified copy of Admin.
Ord. 14-13 (attached to Answer of Defendants Hamilton & Lumbreras). Administrative Order
14-13 provided that [t]he court performs an administrative function when it issues a marriage
license, indicated that in exercising that administrative function the district court is bound to
apply and follow existing Kansas laws, and concluded by saying that [t]he Clerk of the District
Court shall not issue a marriage license to these applicants or to any other applicants of the same
sex. Id.
15.
On October 16, 2014, Plaintiffs Marie and Brown returned to the office of the
Clerk of the Douglas County District Court, were told that their application for a marriage license was denied, and were given a copy of Administrative Order 14-13. Second Declaration of
Kail Marie, 6; Second Declaration of Michelle L. Brown, 5.
16.
On October 9, 2014, Plaintiffs Wilks and DiTrani submitted a fully executed ap-
plication for a marriage license to a deputy clerk at the office of the Clerk of the District Court
for the 18th Judicial District in Wichita, Kansas. Second Declaration of Kerry Wilks, Ph.D., 5;
and Second Declaration of Donna DiTrani, 5. At that point, the deputy clerk reading from a
prepared statement told Plaintiffs Wilks and DiTrani that their application for a marriage license was denied because same-sex marriages violate provisions of the Kansas Constitution and
that the office of the District Court Clerk for the 18th Judicial District will not issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples until a court rules otherwise. Id. See also Answer of Defendants
Hamilton & Lumbreras, Doc. 49, 12.
17.
On November 4, 2014, this Court issued its Memorandum and Order preliminarily
enjoining enforcement of the challenged Kansas marriage laws by Defendants Moser, Hamilton,
and Lumbreras. Doc. 29, p. 38.
18.
On November 5, 2014, Defendants Moser, Hamilton and Lumbreras filed a Notice
of Appeal, Doc. 30, and on November 6, 2014, Defendants filed with the Tenth Circuit an Emergency Motion for Stay of Preliminary Injunction.2 In an order filed on November 7, 2014, a two
judge panel of the Tenth Circuit denied Defendants Emergency Motion for Stay.
19.
On November 10, 2014, Defendants filed with the United States Supreme Court
an Emergency Application to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. On November 12,

2014, the Supreme Court denied the Emergency Application after which the District Courts preliminary injunction took effect. Doc. 41.
20.
After the Supreme Court denied Defendants application for a stay pending appeal
and in order to comply with this Courts preliminary injunction, the chief judges of the Douglas
County and Sedgwick County District Courts issued new Administrative Orders that directed the
district court clerks and their staffs to issue marriage licenses without consideration of the gender
of the applicants. See Douglas Co. Dist. Ct. Admin. Ord. 14-17, attached to Aff. of Douglas
Hamilton, Doc. 59-1; Sedgwick Co. Dist. Ct. Admin. Ord. 14-03, filed as Doc. 59-3. The Douglas County Order expressly states that, [i]n compliance with this preliminary injunction this
court rescinds Administrative Order 14-17 [sic] and instructs the Clerk of the District Court to
Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of Defendants
filings in Tenth Circuit Case No. 14-3246 and in U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 14A503.
[F]ederal courts, in appropriate circumstances, may take notice of proceedings in other courts,
both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to
matters at issue. St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169,
1172 (10th Cir. 1979).
6
issue marriage licenses to all qualified applicants without regard to the gender of the applicant.
Doc. 59-1, p. 3.
21.
Plaintiffs Marie and Brown and Plaintiffs Wilks and DiTrani intend to re-apply
for marriage licenses once this case has been fully litigated to final judgment and any appeals are
exhausted. Second Declarations of Marie, 7, Brown, 6, Wilks, 6, & DiTrani, 6.
Marriage Recognition Claims
Recognition Plaintiffs
22.
James E. Peters and Gary A. Mohrman have been together in a committed, loving
same-sex relationship for nearly thirty-five years, and they reside in Lawrence, Kansas. Second
Declaration of James E. Peters, 2. Their marriage was solemnized on July 31, 2010, in Dubuque, Iowa. Id., 3.
23.
Carrie L. Fowler and Sarah C. Braun have been together in a committed, loving
same-sex relationship for more than two years, and they reside in McClouth, Kansas. Second
Declaration of Carrie L. Fowler, 2. Their marriage was solemnized on June 7, 2014 in Chicago, Illinois. Id., 3.
24.
Darci Jo Bohnenblust and Joleen M. Hickman have been together in a committed,
loving same-sex relationship for more than nineteen years, and they reside in the City of Riley,
Kansas. Second Declaration of Darci Jo Bohnenblust, 2. Their marriage was solemnized on
November 13, 2014, in Riley County, Kansas. Id., 4.
Recognition Claim against Defendant Jordan Related to Income-Tax Filing Status
25.
Defendant Nick Jordan is the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue
(hereafter KDOR). See http://www.ksrevenue.org/secretary.html (last checked Feb. 9, 2015).
26.
As Secretary, Defendant Jordan is responsible for the direction and supervision of
the KDOR. Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-5101(a).

27.
The KDOR includes a Division of Taxation, the head of which is the Director of
Taxation, who is appointed by and works under the supervision of the Secretary of KDOR, currently Defendant Jordan. Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-5102.
28.
Kan. Stat. Ann. 79-32,115 establishes rules pertaining to the filing of joint and
separate state income tax returns by husbands and wives. For instance, 79-32,115(c) specifically provides that [i]f both husband and wife are residents, and if their federal taxable income
is determined on a joint federal return, their Kansas taxable income shall be reported and taxed
on the basis of a joint Kansas income tax return.
29.
On October 4, 2013, the KDOR issued Notice 13-18, entitled Guidance for Same-
Sex Couples. Exhibit A, available at http://www.ksrevenue.org/taxnotices/notice13-18.pdf (last

checked Feb. 12, 2015). Notice 13-18 provides in relevant part that Kansas only recognizes
marriages between one woman and one man. (See Article 15, Section 16, of the Kansas Constitution.) Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A. 79-32,115) provide that a husband and wife shall file a
joint or married filing separate return for income tax purposes. Individuals of the same sex cannot file a Kansas income tax return using a tax status of married filing jointly or married filing
separately. Id. Notice 13-18 further provides that married same-sex couples must, instead,
complete and file a special worksheet when they have filed their federal income tax return as
married. Id.
30.
Notice 13-18 further provides that The above guidance applies to returns filed for
tax year 2013 and going forward.
31.
Plaintiffs Peters and Mohrman filed their 2013 federal income tax returns as mar-
ried, filing separately. SecondPeters Decl., 12.

32.
Because of the KDORs refusal to allow married same-sex couples to file state in-
come tax returns as married filing jointly or married filing separately, Plaintiffs Peters and
Mohrman had to prepare both married federal tax returns for federal filing purposes and single
federal tax returns in order to prepare state single tax returns. Id., 13. The preparation of those
multiple tax returns caused Plaintiffs Peters and Mohrman to expend additional time and resources that would not be required of different-sex couples. Id.
Claims Against Defendants Jordan & Kaspar Related to Drivers License Name Change
33.
The KDOR includes a Division of Vehicles, the head of which is the Director of
Vehicles, who is appointed by and administers the Division of Vehicles under the supervision of
the Secretary of KDOR, currently Defendant Jordan. Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-5110.
34.
Defendant Lisa Kaspar is the incumbent Director of the Division of Vehicles. See
Roger Cornish, Kansas Has New Director of Vehicles, Nov. 1, 2013, available at
http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/kansas-has-new-director-of-vehicles/22760866 (last
checked Feb. 10, 2015).
35.
The Division of Vehicles is responsible for issuing drivers licenses to eligible Kan-
sas residents and for reissuing drivers licenses to spouses who change their last names as part of
the marriage licensing process. Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-235b (issuance of new licenses) & 8-246(a)
(replacement of drivers licenses if a new name is acquired).
36.
When the name of a Kansas drivers licensee is changed by marriage or otherwise,
such person, within 10 days thereafter, shall notify the division [of vehicles] in writing of such
persons . . . former and new names and of the number of any drivers license then held by such
person. Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-248.
37.
[I]f a new name is acquired, the person to whom such drivers license was issued
may obtain a replacement upon: (1) Furnishing satisfactory proof of the . . . name change to the
division, including an affidavit stating the circumstances of the . . . name change; (2) payment of
a fee of $8; and (3) furnishing proof of the persons identity as provided in subsection (b). Kan.
Stat. Ann. 8-246(a). Subsection (b) lists numerous documents that the Division of Vehicles
must accept as proof of identity including a marriage license. Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-248(b)(6).
38.
Kansas law provides that [a]t the time of marriage, a person may designate a new
legal name, by which such person shall subsequently be known. Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2506(a).
Such new legal name shall be recorded on the marriage license issued to such person, and the
name change shall be effective upon the endorsement of the persons marriage license with the
certificate of marriage of the person who performed the marriage ceremony[.] Kan. Stat. Ann.
23-2506(b & c). A certified copy of a persons marriage license . . . shall constitute proof of
identity for the purposes of issuance of any Kansas drivers license or nondrivers identification
card. Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2506(d).
39.
On her marriage license, as permitted by Illinois law, Plaintiff Carrie L. Fowler
changed her last name from Fowler to Braun. SecondFowler Decl., 5.

40.
On their Kansas marriage license, Plaintiffs Bohnenblust and Hickman designated
new legal last names for themselves. SecondBohnenblust Decl., 6 & Exhibit B (certified copy
of Kansas Marriage License No. 14MA661). Specifically, Plaintiff Bohnenblust designated Pottroff (her last name at birth) as her new last name, and Plaintiff Hickman designated Spain (her
last name at birth) as her new last name. Id.
10
41.
After changing their names as part of the marriage licensing process, Plaintiffs
Fowler, Bohnenblust, and Hickman were able to change their last names on their records at the
Social Security Administration and to obtain new Social Security cards listing their new last
names. SecondFowler Decl., 6; SecondBohnenblust Decl., 7.
42.
After their marriages, Plaintiffs Fowler, Bohnenblust, and Hickman went to drivers
license offices operated under the supervision of the Kansas Division of Vehicles and attempted
to obtain new drivers licenses in their new last names. SecondFowler Decl., 7; Second
Bohnenblust Decl., 8.
43.
The Division of Vehicles refused to issue Plaintiffs Fowler, Bohnenblust, and
Hickman drivers licenses in their new last names. Id.

44.
Clerks working at the drivers license offices told Plaintiffs Fowler, Bohnenblust,
and Hickman that, because their marriages are not recognized in Kansas, the Division of Vehicles would not issue them new drivers licenses in their new married last names. Id.
45.
Plaintiff Fowler called the Division of Vehicles office in Lawrence to see if she
would be able to get a new license in her married name. The staff person who answered the telephone stated that, even though some district court clerks were issuing marriage licenses to samesex couples, the Division of Vehicles does not recognize same-sex marriages. SecondFowler
Decl., 8.
46.
Plaintiff Fowler then called the Division of Vehicles Drivers Licensing telephone
number in Topeka, Kansas, and was told that the Division had been instructed to follow the Kansas Constitution and not to recognize same-sex marriages, including the marriage of Plaintiffs
Fowler and Braun. Id.
11
Recognition Claims Against Defendant Michael Related to the State Employee Health Insurance
Plan
47. The State Employee Health Plan (SEHP) provides health care benefits for eligible
state employees, their spouses, and their other eligible dependents. Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-6501;
K.A.R. 108-1-1(b)(2) (state officers & employees eligible), 33 Kan. Reg. 1284 (Dec. 18,
2014), available at
http://www.kssos.org/pubs/register/2014/Vol_33_No_51_December_18_2014_p_12691296.pdf (last checked Feb. 10, 2015).
48.
Defendant Mike Michael is the Director of the SEHP. See KDHE website at
http://www.kdheks.gov/hcf/sehp/healthcare_commission.html (last checked Feb. 10, 2015).

49.
The SEHPs eligibility regulation provides that [a]ny person enrolled in the health
care benefits program as a primary participant may enroll the following dependents, subject to
the same conditions and limitations that apply to the primary participant: (A) The primary participants lawful wife or husband, as recognized by Kansas law and subject to documentation requirements of the commission or its designee[.] K.A.R. 108-1-1(g)(1).
50.
The SEHP provides participants with a booklet that explains the benefits and cover-
age of the Plan. SecondPeters Decl., 6. The booklet for the current Plan year is entitled State
Employee Benefits Guidebook Plan Year 2015, and it was issued in October 2014. Id. In a
section entitled Other Eligible Individuals Under the SEHP, the Guidebook explains that the
SEHP provides dependent coverage for [y]our lawful wife or husband, referred to as spouse
throughout the rest of this guidebook. (Same gender marriages are not recognized under Kansas
Law). SecondPeters Decl., 6 (copy of page 9 of the Guidebook, attached to SecondPeters
Declaration as Exhibit 1).
12
51.
Plaintiffs Peters and Bohnenblust are employed by state universities in Kansas and
are thus employees of the State of Kansas. SecondPeters Decl., 5; SecondBohnenblust Decl.,
9.
52.
Plaintiffs Peters and Bohnenblust are eligible for health care benefits provided
through the SEHP because they meet the definition of primary participants within the meaning
of K.A.R. 108-1-1(b)(2). Id.
53.
Plaintiffs Peters and Bohnenblust both participate in the SEHP for their health in-
surance coverage. Id.

54.
On November 16, 2014, Plaintiff Peters went to the human resources department at
the University of Kansas and asked to add Plaintiff Mohrman to his health insurance policy as
the primary participants lawful husband, as permitted by K.A.R. 108-1-1(g)(1)(A). Second
Peters Decl., 7.
55.
The human resources department at the University of Kansas declined the request
of Plaintiff Peters to add his lawful husband, Plaintiff Mohrman, as an eligible dependent under
the SEHP. Id., 8.
56.
On November 22, 2014, Plaintiff Bohnenblust sent an e-mail to the human re-
sources office at her employer, Kansas State University, in which she requested to add Plaintiff
Hickman to her health insurance policy as the primary participants lawful wife. Second
Bohnenblust Decl., 10.
57.
On November 24, 2014, the human resources department at Kansas State University
declined the request of Plaintiff Bohnenblust to add her lawful wife, Plaintiff Hickman, as an eligible dependent under the SEHP. Id.
13
58.
In an e-mail dated November 24, 2014, a human resources representative told Plain-
tiff Bohnenblust that she could not add Plaintiff Hickman as an eligible dependent on her health
care benefits because Defendant Michael had advised Kansas State University that same gender
couples will remain ineligible for spousal health care benefits under the SEHP because Kansas
law does not recognize same-sex marriages. Id.
II.
Argument
A. Overview & Summary Judgment Standards

In this case, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of Kansas law that
prohibit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and that prohibit the recognition
of same-sex marriages entered into in Kansas and elsewhere. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that
Kan. Const. art. 15, 16 and Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2501 and 23-2508 violate the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As a remedy, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Kansas laws are unconstitutional
and a permanent injunction against the enforcement of those laws.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). In considering a motion for summary judgment, furthermore, the moving party has the
burden of demonstrat[ing] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986), and the court must view the facts in the light most favorable
to the opposing party, Adickes v. S.S. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Similarly, [t]he
evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Whether a genuine issue of
material fact exists depends on whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
14
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter
of law. Id., 477 U.S. at 251-252.
B. Under binding Tenth Circuit precedent, the Kansas laws that ban same-sex marriage
are unconstitutional, and Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment.
This Court should grant summary judgment to Plaintiffs because, viewing the uncontroverted evidence in the light most favorable to Defendants, there is no genuine issue of material
fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Lenox
MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 762 F. 3d 1114, 1118 (10th Cir. 2014).
Under binding Tenth Circuit precedent: A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage
license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the
persons in the marriage union. Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1199 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 265 (2014). In addition, the Tenth Circuit squarely held in Kitchen that the fundamental right to marry necessarily includes the right to have ones marriage recognized. Id. at
1213.
The precedent in Kitchen dictates the result in this case. As this Court previously ruled,
Kansas same-sex marriage ban does not differ in any meaningful respect from the Utah . . .
laws the Tenth Circuit found unconstitutional, and [b]ecause Tenth Circuit precedent is binding on this Court, Kitchen . . . dictate[s] the result here. Memorandum and Order, 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 157093 (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2014), Doc. 29, p. 33. See United States v. Spedalieri, 910
F.2d 707, 709 n.2 (10thCir. 1990) (A district court must follow the precedent of this circuit);
Phillips v. Moore, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1258 (D. Kan. 2001) (The [district] court, of course, is
bound by circuit precedent) (citing Spedalieri). The Court should, therefore, grant Plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment on the legal question of whether the Kansas laws prohibiting officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and from recognizing same-sex mar15
riages for any legal purpose violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. There are no disputed material issues of fact that preclude the entry of summary
judgment.
There are no disputed material issues of fact that preclude the entry of summary judgment
in this case. There is no dispute that:
The License Plaintiffs meet all the relevant requirements to marry under Kansas
law. See Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereafter SUMF), 12.
When Plaintiffs filed this suit, Defendants Hamilton and Lumbreras were refusing
to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of the Kansas laws that
ban same-sex marriage. SUMF, 14 & 16.
The Administrative Orders issued by the chief judges of the Douglas County and
Sedgwick County District Courts, which authorize Defendants Hamilton and
Lumbreras to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, were issued to comply
with this Courts preliminary injunction, which compelled Defendant Court
Clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. See Douglas Co.
Dist. Ct. Admin. Ord. 14-17, attached to Aff. of Douglas Hamilton, Doc. 59-1;
Sedgwick Co. Dist. Ct. Admin. Ord. 14-03, Doc. 59-3. The Douglas County Order expressly states that, [i]n compliance with this preliminary injunction this
court rescinds Administrative Order 14-17 and instructs the Clerk of the District
Court to issue marriage licenses to all qualified applicants without regard to the
gender of the applicant. Doc. 59-1, p. 3.
Defendant Mosier has statutory duties with respect to registering and indexing
marriage licenses filed with KDHE and providing certified copies of such records
16
upon request. SUMF 7. Defendant Mosier also has a statutory duty to provide
district courts with the necessary forms to carry out the marriage licensing processs. Id. Defendant Mosier is performing those duties with respect to same-sex
marriage licenses pursuant to the terms of the preliminary injunction, but absent
an injunction Defendant Mosier would be required to follow the Kansas laws banning same-sex marriage. SUMF, 17.
Plaintiffs Peters and Mohrman, Fowler and Braun, and Bohnenblust and Hickman
received legally valid marriage licenses and solemnized their marriages in accordance with all legal requirements. SUMF, 22-24.
Defendant Jordan, through his official duties, is enforcing Kansass marriage bans
by not permitting the Recognition Plaintiffs or any other married same-sex couples to file joint tax returns pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 79-32,115. SUMF,
25-32.
Defendants Jordan and Kaspar, through their official duties, are enforcing Kansass marriage bans by not issuing drivers licenses with changed last names to
Plaintiffs Fowler, Bohnenblust, and Hickman or any other married same sex
couples based on a certified copy of their marriage licenses pursuant to Kan.
Stat. Ann. 23-2506. SUMF, 33-46.
Defendant Michael, through his official duties, is enforcing Kansass marriage

bans by not allowing Plaintiffs Peters and Bohnenblust or any other person with
a same-sex spouse to enroll their spouses as eligible dependents pursuant to
K.A.R. 108-1-1(g)(1)(A). SUMF, 47-58.
17
C. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction.

Declaratory judgment is a remedy available under both the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. 2201-2202, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57. The Tenth Circuit has instructed trial courts to
weigh two key questions when asked to hear a declaratory judgment action: Will a declaration
of rights, under the circumstances, serve to clarify or settle legal relations in issue? Will it
terminate or afford relief from the uncertainty giving rise to the proceeding? If an affirmative
answer can be had to both questions, the trial court should hear the case; if not, it should decline
to do so. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F. 3d 979, 983 (10th Cir. 1994).
In this case, a declaratory judgment will both settle the legal relations in issue and
afford relief from the uncertainty giving rise to the proceeding. Specifically, a declaratory
judgment would put to rest the on-going refusal of some Kansas district courts to issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples and of State officials including the Recognition Defendants to
refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in a wide variety of contexts.3 Thus, Plaintiffs
respectfully request that the Court enter a judgment declaring that Article 15, 16 of the Kansas
Constitution and Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2501 and 23-2508 violate the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendments and are unconstitutional and unenforceable on
their face.
Erin Matthews, First same-sex marriage license issued in Saline County, Salina Journal, Feb.
10, 2015, available on-line at http://www.salina.com/news/local/first-same-sex-marriage-licenseissued-in-saline-county/article_d01974c3-159f-5d15-8336-fde4b0af7522.html (last checked Feb.
13, 2015) (reporting that thirty-nine county district courts in Kansas continue to refuse to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples); Kansas agencies not recognizing gay marriages yet,
Lawrence Journal-World, Nov. 20, 2014, available on-line at http://www2.ljworld.com/news/
2014/nov/20/kansas-agencies-not-recognizing-gay-marriages-yet/ (last checked Feb. 13, 2015)
(Gov. Brownbacks administration will not make any policy changes to recognize same-sex
couples while it defends the Kansas gay marriage ban against a federal lawsuit).
18
According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent

injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must
demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such
as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the
balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and
(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v.
MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). See also Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care
Authority, 335 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2003). In granting Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary
injunction on the marriage licensing claims, the Court found that Plaintiffs had met each of these
requirements. Memorandum and Order, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157093 (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2014),
Doc. 29, pp. 35-36.
Irreparable Injury and Inadequate Remedies. No award of money damages would compensate for Plaintiffs injuries. The loss of a constitutional right even for minimal periods of
time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)
(plurality opinion); see also, Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1131 (10th Cir. 2012) (Furthermore, when an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing
of irreparable injury is necessary) (citation omitted). Here, without the Courts declaratory relief and permanent injunction, the Plaintiffs will suffer the disrespect, stigma, and uncertainty
that flows from the loss of their right to choose their marital partner, together with the daily burdens they and their families have suffered for years, including, taken together, the loss of benefits
and rights conferred upon married different-sex couples by many state laws solely because Kansas law bans same-sex marriage. Only a permanent injunction will remedy these ongoing constitutional violations.
19
Balance of Hardships. The balance of hardships tips clearly in favor of Plaintiffs. The
record confirms that the Kansas marriage license ban harms Plaintiffs by depriving them of the
right to marry through Kansass statutory marriage licensing process; but Defendant Mosier and
the Defendant District Court Clerks, who would simply issue and process more marriage licenses
if the requested injunction issued, would suffer no harm. Moreover, the Kansas marriage recognition ban harms the Recognition Plaintiffs in specific and concrete ways, such as denying them
the right to change their names on drivers licenses, denying them the right to file their state income tax returns as married, and denying them the right to add their husbands or wives as eligible dependents for purposes of state employee health care benefits. Kansas statutes extend
these rights to different-sex married people as a matter of course, but the Kansas marriage ban
deprives same-sex married couples of these basic privileges. Granting a permanent injunction
against enforcement of these unconstitutional laws would have no effect on the Recognition Defendants, who would merely be required to process slightly different tax forms and some additional name changes and applications for dependent health care benefits. As this Court noted in
granting the preliminary injunction, [o]n these facts, Tenth Circuit precedent requires the Court
to conclude the balance of harm analysis favors injunctive relief. Memorandum and Order,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157093 (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2014), Doc. 29, p. 36.
The Public Interest. Finally, the public interest would be served by enjoining enforcement of the Kansas marriage ban. Allowing same-sex couples to marry their same-sex partners
and requiring the recognition of those marriages would stabilize these same-sex families and diminish the harm caused by the Kansas laws that prohibit same-sex marriage. On the other hand,
allowing same-sex marriage and requiring government officials to recognize same-sex marriages
would cause no harm to either the marriages of or the benefits that flow to different-sex couples.
20
Once again, as this Court noted previously, the public interest favors protecting plaintiffs constitutional rights by enjoining Kansas plainly unconstitutional provisions. Id.
In short, the record supports entry of a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have shown that the Kansas laws banning the issuance of marriage licenses to
same-sex couples and the laws prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter a declaratory judgment
that article 15, 16 of the Kansas Constitution and Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2501 and 23-2508 and
any other sources of state law that permit or require Defendants to refuse recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples whether performed in Kansas or elsewhere are unconstitutional in
violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a preliminary injunction:
(1) enjoining Defendants Susan Mosier, Douglas Hamilton, Bernie Lumbreras, Nick Jordan,
Lisa Kaspar, and Mike Michael, in their official capacities as well as all officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with
them from enforcing article 15, section 16 of the Kansas Constitution, Kansas Statutes Annotated 23-2501 and 23-2508, and any other sources of state law that permit or require Defendants to refuse recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples whether performed in Kansas or
elsewhere, and
(2) requiring Defendants Susan Mosier, Douglas Hamilton, Bernie Lumbreras, Nick Jordan,
Lisa Kaspar, and Mike Michael, in their official capacities as well as all officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with
21
them to treat same-sex married people the same as any other married persons, including but not
limited to:
(a) requiring Defendant Mosier in her official capacity and all officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with
her to process marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to different-sex couples freedom to marry and to
recognize marriages validly entered into by same-sex couples including Plaintiffs.
(b) requiring Defendants Hamilton and Lumbreras in their official capacities and all officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or
participation with them to permit issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples,
pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to different-sex couples freedom to marry, and to recognize marriages validly entered into by same-sex couples including Plaintiffs.
(c) requiring Defendant Jordan, in his official capacity and all officers, agents, servants,
him to recognize marriages validly entered into in Kansas and elsewhere by same-sex
couples including Plaintiffs for purposes of filing individual state income tax returns in a
married status;
(d) requiring Defendants Jordan and Kasper in their official capacities and all officers,
agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or
participation with them to recognize marriages validly entered into in Kansas and elsewhere by same-sex couples including Plaintiffs for purposes of issuing new drivers li-
22
censes to married same-sex spouses who change their names as part of the marriage licensure process; and
(e) requiring Defendant Michael in his official capacity and all officers, agents, servants,
him to recognize marriages validly entered into in Kansas and elsewhere by same-sex
couples including Plaintiffs for purposes of allowing employees covered by the SEHP to
add their same-sex spouses as dependents covered by the SEHP.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen Douglas Bonney
Stephen Douglas Bonney, KS Bar No. 12322
ACLU Foundation of Kansas
3601 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Tel. (816) 994-3311
Fax: (816) 756-0136
dbonney@aclukansas.org
Mark P. Johnson, KS Bar #22289
Dentons US, LLP
4520 Main Street
Suite 1100
Kansas City, MO 64111
816/460-2400
816/531-7545 (fax)
Mark.johnson@dentons.com
Joshua A. Block [motion for pro hac vice to be
filed]
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2593
jblock@aclu.org
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
23
Certificate of Service
I certify that, on February 13, 2015, the foregoing document was served on counsel for all
defendants per the Courts ECF system.
/s/ Stephen Douglas Bonney
24
Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86-1 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 2
Policy & Research

915 SW Harrison St
Topeka KS 66612-1588
Nick Jordan, Secretary
Richard Cram, Director
Department of Revenue
Phone: 785-296-3081
FAX: 785-296-7928
www.ksrevenue.org
Sam Brownback, Governor
NOTICE 13-18
GUIDANCE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
(October 4, 2013)
Federal Tax Treatment

For federal tax purposes, Rev. Rul. 2013-17 provides that the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) will recognize a marriage of same-sex individuals that was validly entered into in a state
whose laws authorize such a union. This applies even if the couple is domiciled in a state that
does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.
As a result, for tax year 2013 and going forward, same-sex spouses generally must file their
federal income tax returns using a filing status of married filing jointly or married filing
separately.
Kansas Income Tax Treatment
Kansas only recognizes marriages between one woman and one man. (See Article 15,
Section 16, of the Kansas Constitution.) Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A. 79-32,115) provide
that a husband and wife shall file a joint or married filing separate return for income tax
purposes. Individuals of the same sex cannot file a Kansas income tax return using a tax status
of married filing jointly or married filing separately.
In the case of same-sex individuals who are considered married for federal income tax
purposes:
As has been the practice since the initiation of the Kansas income tax, each individual
must file a separate Kansas income tax return on Form K-40, using the filing status of
single or, if qualified, head of household.
Same-sex individuals who file a joint federal income tax return must complete a
worksheet that will be available at www.ksrevenue.org to show the amount of income
as reported on the joint federal return that is allocable to each individual, and
determines the federal adjusted gross income to be used by each individual for
Kansas tax purposes.
The above guidance applies to returns filed for tax year 2013 and going forward.
Plaintiffs' Exhibit A
Although Rev. Rul. 2013-17 provides that under certain circumstances amended returns for
prior tax years may be filed for federal tax purposes to change the filing status to married filing
jointly or married filing separately, no such amended returns may be filed for Kansas to change
the filing status.
Returns can be filed electronically through www.webtax.org, or, if it is available, through
commercial tax preparation software. Returns can be filed on paper, although the Department of
Revenue prefers that returns be filed electronically.
Taxpayer Assistance
Additional copies of this notice, forms or publications are available from our web site,
www.ksrevenue.org. If you have questions about income tax, please contact:
Taxpayer Assistance Center
Kansas Department of Revenue
915 SW Harrison St., 1st Floor
Topeka, KS 66612-1588
Phone: 785-368-8222
Hearing Impaired TTY: 785-296-6461
Fax: 785-291-3614
Plaintiffs' Exhibit A
Plaintiffs' Exhibit B

KAIL MARIE, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SUSAN MOSIER, M.D., in his official capacity )
as Secretary of the Kansas Department of
)
Health and Environment, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 14-cv-2518
SECOND DECLARATION OF JAMES E. PETERS

1.
I, James E. Peters, am one of the Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal
knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration and could and would competently testify to
these facts.
2.
I currently live in Lawrence, Kansas, which is in Douglas County. I live there
with my husband and co-plaintiff, Gary A. Mohrman, with whom I have been in a committed,
loving relationship for more than thirty-four years.
3.
Gary Mohrman and I obtained a marriage license in Dubuque County, Iowa, and
our marriage was solemnized in a public ceremony performed in Dubuque, Iowa, on July 31,
2010.
4.
Except for the fact that Gary and I are both men, we meet all of the qualifications
to have our marriage recognized in Kansas.

5.
I am currently employed by the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas, as the
Director of the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute. Among other employee benefits that come
with my job, I am eligible for health insurance provided through the Kansas State Employee
Health Plan (SEHP) because I meet the definition of a primary participant within the
meaning of K.A.R. 108-1-1(b)(2). I participate in and receive my health care employee

benefits through the SEHP.
6.
The SEHP provides participants with a booklet that explains the benefits and
coverage of the Plan. The booklet for the current Plan year is entitled State Employee Benefits
Guidebook Plan Year 2015, and it was issued in October 2014. In a section entitled Other
Eligible Individuals Under the SEHP, the Guidebook explains that the KSEHP provides for
dependent coverage for [y]our lawful wife or husband, referred to as spouse throughout the
rest of this guidebook. (Same gender marriages are not recognized under Kansas Law). I have
attached a copy of page 9 of the Guidebook to this Declaration and have marked it as Exhibit1.
7.
On November 16, 2014, I went to Human Resources at the University of Kansas
and completed paperwork to add my lawful husband, Gary Mohrman, as a dependent eligible
for health care benefits under the SEHP.
8.
The Human Resources Department at the University of Kansas declined my
request to add Gary Mohrman as a dependent lawful husband eligible for health care benefits
through the SEHP.
9.
The Human Resources representative told me that pursuant to a directive from
Defendant Michael Plaintiff Mohrman could not be added as a dependent spouse because the
State of Kansas does not recognize same-sex marriages.
10.
The Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) refused to allow same-sex
couples who married in other states to file their state individual income tax returns for tax year
2013 as married.
11.
The Internal Revenue Service requires married same-sex couples to file their
federal individual income tax returns as married if they were married in a state in which same-
sex marriage is legal even if they live in a state like Kansas that refuses to recognize such
marriages.
12.
Plaintiff Mohrman and I filed our 2013 federal income tax returns as married,
filing separately.
13.
Because of the KDORs refusal to allow married same-sex couples to file state
income tax returns as married filing jointly or married filing separately, Plaintiff Mohrman
and I had to prepare both married federal tax returns for federal filing purposes and single federal
tax returns in order to prepare state single tax returns. The preparation of those multiple tax
returns caused us to expend additional time and resources that would not be required of differentsex couples.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements, including all statements
in this Declaration, are true and correct.
Executed on February 13, 2014.
/s/ James E. Peters________

James E. Peters

OTHER ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE SEHP
In addition to covering yourself, you may also elect coverage for other eligible individuals of your family. These
eligible individuals include:
1. Your lawful wife or husband, referred to as spouse throughout the rest of this guidebook (Same
gender marriages are not recognized under Kansas Law).
2. Any of your eligible dependent child(ren) also referred to as dependent(s) throughout the rest of
this guidebook.
If you divorce, coverage for your former spouse and stepchild(ren) ends on the last day of the month of the
date your divorce is filed. If the date of your divorce is the first day of the month, coverage for your former
spouse and stepchild(ren) ends on the first day of that month.
Other Eligible Individuals Important Information:
A. If you are eligible to enroll as a primary member in the SEHP, you are not eligible to be enrolled
as spouse or dependent of another primary member in the SEHP.
B. An eligible dependent that is enrolled by one primary member is not eligible to be enrolled as a
dependent by another primary member.
C. Other eligible individual excludes any individual who is not a citizen or national of the United
States, unless the individual is a resident of the United States or a country contiguous to the
United States, is a member of a primary members household, and resides with the primary
member for more than six months of the calendar year. The dependent shall be considered to
reside with the primary member even when the dependent is temporarily absent due to special
circumstances, including illness, education, business, vacation, and military service.
D. Permanent and total disability means that an individual is unable to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can
be expected to result in death or has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of
at least 12 months. An individual shall not be considered to have permanent and total disability
unless the individual furnishes proof of the permanent and total disability in the form and
manner, and at the times, the SEHP may require.
E. The word "child" means:
1) Your natural son or daughter
2) Your lawfully adopted son or daughter. Lawfully adopted will include those instances
in which a primary member has filed a petition for adoption with the court, has a
placement agreement for adoption or has been granted legal custody.
3) Your stepchild. If the natural or adoptive parent of the stepchild is divorced from you,
the child no longer qualifies as your stepchild, and is no longer eligible for coverage.
4) A child of whom you as the primary member has legal custody. Legal custody ends
once the child reaches the age of 18.
5) Your grandchild, if at least one of the following conditions is met:
I.
You have legal custody of your grandchild or have lawfully adopted your
grandchild
II.
The grandchild lives in the your home and is the child of your covered eligible
dependent child and you provide more than 50% of the support of your
grandchild; or
III.
The grandchild is the child of your covered eligible dependent child and is
considered to reside with you even when your grandchild or your eligible
dependent child is temporarily absent due to special circumstances including
State Employee Health Plan
State Employee Benefits Guidebook Plan Year 2015 (New - 10/14)
Page 9
Peters Declaration, Exhibit 1

KANSAS CITY DIVISION
KAIL MARIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT MOSER, M.D., in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-cv-2518
SECOND DECLARATION OF DARCI JO BOHNENBLUST

1.
I, Darci Jo Bohnenblust, am one of the Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal
these facts.
2.
I currently live in the City of Riley, Kansas, which is in Riley County. I live there
with my wife and co-plaintiff, Joleen M. Hickman, with whom I have been in a committed,
loving relationship for more than nineteen years.
3.
On October 9, 2014, Joleen and I applied for a marriage license from the Riley
County District Court, but that application was denied in an Administrative Order signed by
Chief Judge Meryl D. Wilson.
4.
On November 13, 2014, Joleen and I obtained a marriage license from the Riley
County District Court, and our marriage was solemnized in a public ceremony performed in Riley
County, Kansas. We married one day after the District Courts preliminary injunction in this case
went into effect.
5.
Except for the fact that Joleen and I are both women, we meet all of the
qualifications for having our marriage recognized in Kansas.

6.
On our marriage license, as permitted by Kansas law, I changed my last name
from Bohnenblust to Pottroff (my last name at birth), and Joleen changed her last name from
Hickman to Spain (her last name at birth).
7.
After getting married on November 13, 2014, Joleen and I were able to change
our last names on our records at the Social Security Administration and to obtain new Social
Security cards with our new last names.
8.
After getting married, Joleen and I went to a local office of the Kansas Division of
Vehicles, a division of the Kansas Department of Revenue, presented a certified copy of our
marriage license issued by the Riley County District Court, and requested that the Kansas
Division of Vehicles issue new drivers licenses to each of us in our new last names as shown on
the certified copy of our marriage license. The Kansas Division of Vehicles refused to issue us
new drivers licenses in our new last names as shown on the certified copy of our marriage
license. The clerk with whom we interacted stated that the State of Kansas does not recognize
same-sex marriages.
9.
I am employed by Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas. Among other
employee benefits that come with my job, I am eligible for health insurance provided through the
Kansas State Employees Health Plan (SEHP). I am a participant in the SEHP, which provides
for dependent coverage including coverage of a spouse. But the Plan specifically excludes
same-sex spouses from eligibility for dependent spousal health insurance benefits.
10.
On November 22, 2014, I sent an e-mail to Human Resources at Kansas State
University requesting to add my spouse, Plaintiff Hickman, as a dependent on the health
insurance policy that covers me. In an e-mail dated November 24, 2013, a Human Resources
representative told me that she could not add my spouse as a dependent on my health care
benefits because Defendant Michael had advised Kansas State University that same gender
couples will remain ineligible for spousal health care benefits under the SEHP because Kansas
law does not recognize same-sex marriages. For that reason, I was unable to add my wife,
Plaintiff Hickman, as a dependent spouse under the SEHP.
/s/ Darci Jo Bohnenblust ________

Darci Jo Bohnenblust

KAIL MARIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT MOSER, M.D., in his official
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-cv-2518
SECOND DECLARATION OF CARRIE L. FOWLER (BRAUN)

1.
I, Carrie L. Fowler (Braun), am one of the Plaintiffs in this action. I have
personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration and could and would competently
testify to these facts.
2.
I currently live in McLouth, Kansas, which is in Jefferson County. I live there
with my wife and co-plaintiff, Sarah C. Braun, with whom I have been in a committed, loving
relationship for more than two years.
3.
Sarah and I obtained a marriage license in Cook County, Illinois, and our marriage
was solemnized in a public ceremony performed in Chicago, Illinois, on June 7, 2014.

4.
Except for the fact that Sarah and I are both women, we meet all of the
qualifications to have our marriage recognized in Kansas.

5.
On our marriage license, as permitted by Illinois law, I changed my last name
from Fowler to Braun.

6.
After getting married in Illinois on June 7, 2014, I was able to change my last
name from Fowler to Braun on my records at the Social Security Administration and to obtain a
new Social Security card listing my last name as Braun.
7.
On June 25, 2014, Sarah and I went to the Division of Vehicles drivers license
office in Lawrence, Kansas, to attempt to obtain a new drivers license for me in my married
name of Braun. The Division of Vehicles refused to issue me a new license in my married name.
After waiting for over an hour, a clerk told us that our marriage was not recognized under Kansas
law.
8.
On November 13, 2014, after district court clerks in Kansas began issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples, I called the Division of Vehicles office in Lawrence to
see if I would be able to get a new license in my married name, but the staff person who
answered the telephone stated that, even though some district court clerks were issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples, the Division of Vehicles still does not recognize same-sex
marriages. I then called the telephone number for the Division of Vehicles Drivers Licensing
office in Topeka, Kansas, and was told that the Division of Vehicles had been instructed to
follow the Kansas Constitution and not to recognize same-sex marriages, including my marriage
to Plaintiff Braun.
/s/ Carrie L. Fowler (Braun)____

Carrie L. Fowler (Braun)

KAIL MARIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUSAN MOSIER, M.D., in her official
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-cv-2518
SECOND DECLARATION OF KAIL MARIE

1.
I, Kail Marie, am one of the Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal knowledge
of the matters stated in this Declaration and could and would competently testify to these facts.
2.
I currently live in Lecompton, Kansas, which is in Douglas County. I live there
with my life partner, Michelle L. Brown, with whom I have been in a committed relationship for
more than twenty-one years.
3.
I want to marry Michelle, but my desire to marry has been denied because the
laws of the State of Kansas prohibit us and other same-sex couples from marrying.
4.
Except for the fact that Michelle and I are both women, we meet all of the
qualifications for marriage in Kansas. Specifically, we are both over the age of 18, we are not
related by blood, and neither of us is currently married to another person.
5.
On October 8, 2014, I appeared in person at the office of the Clerk of the Douglas
County District Court to apply for a marriage license so that Michelle and I could get married.
When I asked for an application, the deputy clerk verbally asked me for Michelle's and my
personal information, as well as for my ID. The clerk then wrote the information down on a
form and then asked me to sign the form, which required me to verify the information was true
and correct. The clerk then gave me the worksheet to take home and told me not to bring it back
before Monday, October 13, after the statutory three day waiting period required for the issuance
of a marriage license in Kansas.
6.
On October 16, 2014, Michelle and I returned to the office of the Clerk of the
Douglas County District Court, were told that our application for a marriage license was denied,
and, were given a copy of Douglas County District Court Administrative Order 14-13.
7.
Michelle and I intend to re-apply for a marriage license once this case has been
fully litigated to final judgment and any appeals have been exhausted.
/s/ Kail Marie ______________

Kail Marie

KAIL MARIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-cv-2518
SECOND DECLARATION OF MICHELLE L. BROWN

1.
I, Michelle L. Brown, am one of the Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal
these facts.
2.
I currently live in Lecompton, Kansas, which is in Douglas County. I live there
with my life partner, Kail Marie, with whom I have been in a committed relationship for more
than twenty-one years.
3.
I want to marry Kail, but my desire to marry has been denied because the laws of
the State of Kansas prohibit us and other same-sex couples from marrying.
4.
Except for the fact that Kail and I are both women, we meet all of the
5.
On October 16, 2014, Kail and I returned to the office of the Clerk of the Douglas
County District Court, were told that our application for a marriage license was denied, and,
were given a copy of Douglas County District Court Administrative Order 14-13.
6.
Kail and I intend to re-apply for a marriage license once this case has been fully
litigated to final judgment and any appeals have been exhausted.

/s/ Michelle L. Brown ________

Michelle L. Brown

KAIL MARIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-cv-2518
SECOND DECLARATION OF KERRY WILKS

1.
I, Kerry Wilks, Ph.D., am one of the Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal
these facts.
2.
I currently live in Wichita, Kansas, which is in Sedgwick County. I live there
with my life partner, Donna DiTrani, with whom I have been in a committed relationship for
almost five years.
3.
I want to marry Donna, but my desire to marry has been denied because the laws
of the State of Kansas prohibit us and other same-sex couples from marrying.
4.
Except for the fact that Donna and I are both women, we meet all of the
5.
On October 9, 2014, Donna and I appeared in person at the office of the Clerk of
the Sedgwick County District Court with the express purpose of applying for a marriage license
so that we could get married. A deputy clerk asked us for our names and other pertinent
information and filled out an application for a marriage license for us, which signed under oath
before a deputy clerk. We then gave the deputy clerk the fully executed application for a
marriage license. The clerk indicated that we should sit down and after approximately two
minutes, a new deputy clerk called us forward and reading from a prepared statement
informed us that our application for a marriage license was denied because same-sex marriages
violate provisions of the Kansas Constitution and that the office of the District Court Clerk for
the 18th Judicial District will not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the Supreme
Court otherwise rules differently.
6.
Donna and I intend to re-apply for a marriage license once this case has been fully

/s/ Kerry Wilks, Ph.D._______

Kerry Wilks, Ph.D.

KAIL MARIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-cv-2518
SECOND DECLARATION OF DONNA DITRANI

1.
I, Donna DiTrani, am one of the Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal
these facts.
2.
I currently live in Wichita, Kansas, which is in Sedgwick County. I live there
with my life partner, Kerry Wilks, with whom I have been in a committed relationship for five
years.
3.
I want to marry Kerry, but my desire to marry has been denied because the laws
of the State of Kansas prohibit us and other same-sex couples from marrying.
4.
Except for the fact that Kerry and I are both women, we meet all of the
5.
On October 9, 2014, Kerry and I appeared in person at the office of the Clerk of
the Sedgwick County District Court to apply for a marriage license so that we could get married.
A deputy clerk filled out the application form and we signed it under oath before a deputy clerk.
At that point, the deputy clerk reading from a prepared statement told us that our application
for a marriage license was denied because same-sex marriages violate provisions of the Kansas
Constitution and that the office of the District Court Clerk for the 18th Judicial District will not
issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the Supreme Court otherwise rules
differently.
6.
Kerry and I intend to re-apply for a marriage license once this case has been fully

/s/ Donna DiTrani ___________

Donna DiTrani

2:14-cv-02518 #86

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2:14-cv-02518 #86

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 14-cv-2518

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 24

http://www.kdheks.gov/administration/ (last checked Feb. 9, 2015); KDHE press release dated

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 3 of 24

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 4 of 24

In Kansas, district court clerks, including Defendants Hamilton and Lumbreras,

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 5 of 24

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Chief Judge Robert W. Fairchild of the Seventh

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 6 of 24

On November 5, 2014, Defendants Moser, Hamilton and Lumbreras filed a Notice

an Emergency Application to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. On November 12,

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 7 of 24

Darci Jo Bohnenblust and Joleen M. Hickman have been together in a committed,

Defendant Nick Jordan is the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue

(hereafter KDOR). See http://www.ksrevenue.org/secretary.html (last checked Feb. 9, 2015).

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 8 of 24

As Secretary, Defendant Jordan is responsible for the direction and supervision of

the KDOR. Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-5101(a).

Sex Couples. Exhibit A, available at http://www.ksrevenue.org/taxnotices/notice13-18.pdf (last

tax year 2013 and going forward.

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 9 of 24

ried, filing separately. SecondPeters Decl., 12.

When the name of a Kansas drivers licensee is changed by marriage or otherwise,

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 10 of 24

On her marriage license, as permitted by Illinois law, Plaintiff Carrie L. Fowler

changed her last name from Fowler to Braun. SecondFowler Decl., 5.

On their Kansas marriage license, Plaintiffs Bohnenblust and Hickman designated

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 11 of 24

The Division of Vehicles refused to issue Plaintiffs Fowler, Bohnenblust, and

Hickman drivers licenses in their new last names. Id.

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 12 of 24

http://www.kdheks.gov/hcf/sehp/healthcare_commission.html (last checked Feb. 10, 2015).

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 13 of 24

surance coverage. Id.

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 14 of 24

A. Overview & Summary Judgment Standards

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 15 of 24

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 16 of 24

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 17 of 24

Defendant Michael, through his official duties, is enforcing Kansass marriage

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 18 of 24

C. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction.

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 19 of 24

According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 20 of 24

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 21 of 24

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 22 of 24

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 23 of 24

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86 Filed 02/13/15 Page 24 of 24

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86-1 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 2

Policy & Research

Federal Tax Treatment

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86-1 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 86-3 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 14-cv-2518

SECOND DECLARATION OF JAMES E. PETERS

I, James E. Peters, am one of the Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal

I currently live in Lawrence, Kansas, which is in Douglas County. I live there

to have our marriage recognized in Kansas.