Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132 Filed06/26/12 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Paul D. Clement (DC Bar 433215) pclement@bancroftpllc.com H. Christopher Bartolomucci (DC Bar 453423) cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com Conor B. Dugan (DC Bar 1006458) cdugan@bancroftpllc.com Nicholas J. Nelson (DC Bar 1001696) nnelson@bancroftpllc.com BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 470 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-234-0090 (phone) 202-234-2806 (fax) Of Counsel: Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel (DC Bar 386816) Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel (DC Bar 482949) William.Pittard@mail.house.gov Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel (NJ Bar 043682000) Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov Todd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel (VA Bar 66008) Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov Mary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 501033) MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.gov OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 202-225-9700 (phone) 202-226-1360 (fax) Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, No.

4:10-cv-01564-CW

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132 Filed06/26/12 Page2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 filing fee for this appeal. 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA __________________________________________ ) MICHAEL DRAGOVICH, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ) et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ) BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP ) OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE ) OF REPRESENTATIVES, ) ) Intervenor-Defendant. ) __________________________________________) No. 4:10-cv-01564-CW INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (“House”) respectfully gives notice that it appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the District Court’s May 24, 2012 Order (ECF No. 124) and final Judgment (ECF No. 125), both insofar as they grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 111) and deny the House’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 117). Copies of the Order and Judgment appealed from are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively. The statutory basis for this appeal is 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The House hereby notifies the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 3-1, that it is exempt from submitting the

INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, No.

4:10-cv-01564-CW

1

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132 Filed06/26/12 Page3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 June 26, 2012

Respectfully submitted, BANCROFT PLLC /s/ H. Christopher Bartolomucci H. Christopher Bartolomucci1 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives2

Kerry W. Kircher, as the ECF filer of this document, attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from signatory H. Christopher Bartolomucci. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which speaks for the House in litigation matters, is currently comprised of the Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House, the Honorable Eric Cantor, Majority Leader, the Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, and the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip. The Democratic Leader and the Democratic Whip decline to support the filing of this Notice of Appeal.
INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, No. 2

1

4:10-cv-01564-CW

2

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132 Filed06/26/12 Page4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 26, 2012, I served one copy of the foregoing Intervenor-Defendant’s Notice of Appeal by CM/ECF on the following:

Claudia Center, Esquire Elizabeth Kristen, Esquire Shelley Ann Gregory, Esquire The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94104 Daniel Simon Mason, Esquire Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esquire Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, California 94104 Lori Rifkin, Esquire Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Jean Lin, Trial Attorney US Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest Washington, District of Columbia 20530 Edward George Gregory, Esquire Jennifer Lynn Morrow, Esquire Steptoe & Johnson LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90071

/s/ Kerry W. Kircher Kerry W. Kircher

INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, No.

4:10-cv-01564-CW

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed06/26/12 Page1 of 42

Exhibit A

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Pagel of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page2 of 42

1 2 3

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 MICHAEL DRAGOVICH; MICHAEL 5 PATRICIA FITZSIMMONS; CAROLYN 6 CHARLES COLE; RAFAEL V.
DOMINGUEZ; a n d JOSE G. LIGHT; CHERYL LIGHT; DAVID BEERS; GAITLEY; ELIZABETH LITTERAL;

No. C 10-01564 CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING THE BLAG'S AND FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket Nos. I l l , 116 a n d 117)

7 HERMOSILLO, on b e h a l f o f 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
. Plaintiffs challenge v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; TIMOTHY GEITHNER, i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as Secretary o f Treasury, United S t a t e s Department o f t h e T r e a s u r y ; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DOUGLAS SHULMAN, i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as C o m m i s s i o n e r o f t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e ; BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; a n d ANNE STAUSBOLL, i n h e r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r " CalPERS, Defendants. / themselves and a l l o t h e r s similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

theconstitutionality of § 3 of the

22
Defense o f M a r r i a g e A c t (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7, a n d § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) o f

23
t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) , t o t h e e x t e n t

24
t h a t these statutes l i m i t Plaintiffs' participation i n a long-term Public contend that

25
care insurance program maintained System by t h e C a l i f o r n i a Plaintiffs

26
Employees' R e t i r e m e n t (CalPERS).

27
these f e d e r a l p r o v i s i o n s v i o l a t e t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s guarantees o f

28

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 FiIed05/24/12 Page2 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page3 of 42

1 e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n a n d s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s b y b a r r i n g t h e same2
sex l e g a l spouses a n d r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s o f C a l i f o r n i a

3 p u b l i c employees f r o m e n r o l l m e n t i n t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m c a r e 4 p l a n , even t h o u g h o p p o s i t e - s e x l e g a l spouses a r e p e r m i t t e d t o 5 enroll. 6 7
all Plaintiffs Defendants. move f o r summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i r c l a i m s a g a i n s t F e d e r a l Defendants have s u b m i t t e d a b r i e f f o r summary judgment.

8 partially 9 10 11 12

supporting P l a i n t i f f s ' argue

motion

F e d e r a l Defendants

t h a t g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s s h o u l d be f o u n d their

t o be a s u s p e c t c l a s s a n d t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA i n f r i n g e s equal p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s . Plaintiffs' However, F e d e r a l D e f e n d a n t s

oppose

m o t i o n a n d cross-move f o r summary j u d g m e n t as t o e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m c h a l l e n g i n g § 3 o f t h e DOMA on

13 P l a i n t i f f s '

14 b e h a l f o f same-sex c o u p l e s who a r e r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s 15 u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w , a n d as t o P l a i n t i f f s ' 16 p r o c e s s c h a l l e n g e t o § 3 o f t h e DOMA. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2 cross-move f o r j u d g m e n t t h a t T i t l e constitutionally valid. would n o t defend t h e v a l i d i t y o f s u b s t a n t i v e due also

Federal Defendants

26 U.S.C. § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) i s

Because F e d e r a l D e f e n d a n t s

§ 3 o f t h e DOMA a g a i n s t t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e b y same-sex s p o u s e s , t h e C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e B i p a r t i s a n L e g a l A d v i s o r y Group o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s (BLAG) l e a v e t o

i n t e r v e n e t o defend t h e law. Plaintiffs' motion

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e BLAG h a s opposed

f o r summary j u d g m e n t t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA i s

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as i t a f f e c t s same-sex spouses h e r e , a n d has c r o s s - m o v e d f o r summary a d j u d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n i s constitutional.

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page3 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page4 of 42

1 2

State Defendants seeking guidance

have f i l e d

a response

to Plaintiffs'

motion, action

f r o m t h e Court and a s t a y o f any f e d e r a l

3 d i s q u a l i f y i n g t h e CalPERS p r o g r a m , 4 5
grants P l a i n t i f f s '

i n t h e event t h a t t h e Court
1

m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t .

Having considered a l l o f t h e p a r t i e s '

submissions

and o r a l judgment

6 a r g u m e n t , t h e C o u r t g r a n t s P l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n f o r summary 7 8 9 10 11
I. Long-term Plaintiffs and d e n i e s F e d e r a l D e f e n d a n t s '

a n d t h e BLAG's c r o s s - m o t i o n s .

BACKGROUND Care I n s u r a n c e a n d t h e C h a l l e n g e d P r o v i s i o n s a r e C a l i f o r n i a p u b l i c employees and t h e i r same-sex

s p o u s e s a n d r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s , who a r e i n l o n g - t e r m California

12 c o m m i t t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e c o g n i z e d a n d p r o t e c t e d u n d e r 13
law.

As e x p l a i n e d i n t h i s C o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s o r d e r s , CalPERS

14 p r o v i d e s r e t i r e m e n t a n d h e a l t h b e n e f i t s , i n c l u d i n g l o n g - t e r m c a r e 15 16
i n s u r a n c e , t o many o f t h e s t a t e ' s p u b l i c employees a n d r e t i r e e s and t h e i r families. Long-term care insurance provides coverage

17 when a p e r s o n needs a s s i s t a n c e w i t h b a s i c a c t i v i t i e s 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
to injury,

o f l i v i n g due

o l d age, o r s e v e r e i m p a i r m e n t s r e l a t e d t o c h r o n i c such as A l z h e i m e r ' s disease.

illnesses, In

1996, Congress p a s s e d t h e DOMA, w h i c h , among o t h e r t h i n g s , "spouse" and " m a r r i a g e " f o r f e d e r a l law purposes them t o h e t e r o s e x u a l c o u p l e s . As amended b y

d e f i n e d t h e terms

i n a manner l i m i t i n g

§ 3 o f t h e DOMA, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Code p r o v i d e s ,

S t a t e Defendants a s s e r t t h a t F e d e r a l Defendants c o u l d e l i m i n a t e t h e need f o r a s t a y b y a g r e e i n g t h a t t h e y w i l l n o t seek t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n , i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e C o u r t ' s o r d e r w e r e l a t e r o v e r t u r n e d . However, F e d e r a l D e f e n d a n t s a p p a r e n t l y have n o t a g r e e d . 3

1

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page5 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fifed05/24/12 Page4of41

I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e meaning o f any A c t o f Congress, o r o f any r u l i n g , r e g u l a t i o n , o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bureaus and agencies o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e w o r d " m a r r i a g e " means o n l y a l e g a l u n i o n b e t w e e n one man a n d one woman as husband a n d w i f e , and t h e word "spouse" r e f e r s o n l y t o a p e r s o n o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x who i s a husband o r a w i f e . 1 U.S.C. § 7. T i t l e 26 U.S.C. § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) was a l s o e n a c t e d of t h e Health Insurance i n 1996, as p a r t

P o r t a b i l i t y and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t t a xtreatment t o p a r t i c i p a n t s care insurance plans f o r C u r r e n t l y , t h e CalPERS

8 9 10 11

(HIPAA), p r o v i d i n g in

favorable federal

q u a l i f i e d state-maintained long-term employees. 26 U.S.C. § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) .

state

long-term

care insurance

program i s a q u a l i f i e d s t a t e - m a i n t a i n e d ,

12 p l a n p u r s u a n t 13 14 15

t o § 7702B(f). d i s q u a l i f i e s a state-maintained plan coverage t o i n d i v i d u a l s ( C ) . The l i s t state from

Section 7702B(f)(2)

favorable t a xtreatment i f i t provides o t h e r than those

s p e c i f i e d under i t s subparagraph

16 o f e l i g i b l e i n d i v i d u a l s i n § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) (2) (C) i n c l u d e s

17 employees and f o r m e r employees, t h e i r s p o u s e s , and i n d i v i d u a l s 18 b e a r i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e employees o r spouses w h i c h i s 19 d e s c r i b e d i n s u b p a r a g r a p h s 20 21 22
§ 152(d)(2). I d . Section 152(d)(2), t h epart subparagraph (C) draws i t s l i s t o f t h e t a x code f r o m w h i c h o f e l i g i b l e r e l a t i v e s , defines the (A) t h r o u g h (G) o f 26 U.S.C.

23 r e l a t i v e s f o r whom a t a x p a y e r may c l a i m a d e p e n d e n t e x e m p t i o n . 24 25 26 27 28
4 See 26 U.S.C. §§ 151-52. through S e c t i o n 1 5 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) , s u b p a r a g r a p h s (A)

( H ) , i d e n t i f i e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i n d i v i d u a l s as " q u a l i f y i n g

r e l a t i v e s " f o r t h e dependent exemption: (A) A c h i l d o r a descendant o f a c h i l d .

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fifed05/24/12 PageS ofof 42 Filed06/26/12 Page6 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(B) (C) (D) (E)

A brother, sister,

stepbrother, or stepsister.

The f a t h e r o r m o t h e r , o r an a n c e s t o r o f e i t h e r . A s t e p f a t h e r o r stepmother. A son o r daughter taxpayer. o f a brother or sister of the

(F)

A b r o t h e r o r s i s t e r o f t h e f a t h e r o r mother o f ' the t a x p a y e r . A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, f a t h e r - i n - l a w , mother-in-law, b r o t h e r - i n - l a w , o r s i s t e r - i n - l a w . An i n d i v i d u a l . . . who, f o r t h e t a x a b l e y e a r o f t h e t a x p a y e r , has t h e same p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f abode as t h e t a x p a y e r a n d i s a member o f t h e taxpayer's household.

(G)

(H)

12 26 U.S.C. § 1 5 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) . 13
When i t chose t o i n c o r p o r a t e s u b p a r a g r a p h s (A) t h r o u g h ( G ) , (H) to

14 C o n g r e s s s p e c i f i c a l l y chose n o t t o c a r r y o v e r s u b p a r a g r a p h 15
subparagraph (C) o f § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) ( 2 ) .

Had C o n g r e s s n o t c h o s e n t o (C) o f § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) ( 2 ) , would

16 e x c l u d e s u b p a r a g r a p h 17
r e g i s t e r e d domestic

(H) f r o m s u b p a r a g r a p h

p a r t n e r s o f C a l i f o r n i a p u b l i c employees

18 have q u a l i f i e d as i n d i v i d u a l s e l i g i b l e t o e n r o l l i n t h e CalPERS 19 20 21 22
long-term care p l a n . In addition t oproviding favorable t a xtreatment t o state-

m a i n t a i n e d l o n g - t e r m care p l a n s , Congress approved such t r e a t m e n t for l o n g - t e r m care coverage purchased through t h e p r i v a t e market.

23 26 U.S.C. § 7 7 0 2 B ( a ) - ( b ) . 24 25 26 27 28
Congress enacted these p r o v i s i o n s because o f t h e c r i t i c a l "The care

r o l e o f long term care insurance i n p r o t e c t i n g f a m i l i e s . legislation . . . provides t a xd e d u c t i b i l i t y

f o r long term

i n s u r a n c e , m a k i n g i t p o s s i b l e f o r more A m e r i c a n s t o a v o i d financial difficulty as t h e r e s u l t o f c h r o n i c i l l n e s s , " 142 Cong

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 PageG of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page7 of 42

I

Rec. S3578-01 a t *3608 see

( S t a t e m e n t o f Sen. McCain)

(Apr.

18, 1 9 9 6 ) ;

2 3 4 5 6

a l s o J o i n t Committee on T a x a t i o n ,

" D e s c r i p t i o n o f F e d e r a l Tax

R u l e s a n d L e g i s l a t i v e B a c k g r o u n d R e l a t i n g t o Long-Term Care S c h e d u l e d f o r a P u b l i c H e a r i n g B e f o r e t h e Senate Committee on F i n a n c e on March 27, 2 0 0 1 , " a t 2 0 0 1 WL 36044116 g r a n t i n g t a x advantages f o r l o n g - t e r m care plans (provisions were a d o p t e d " t o

7 p r o v i d e an i n c e n t i v e f o r i n d i v i d u a l s t o t a k e 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2

financial

responsibility for their II. Congressional Denial Sex C o u p l e s

long-term

care needs."). Legal Recognition f o r Same-

o f Federal

For more t h a n t w o d e c a d e s , j u r i s d i c t i o n s o t h e r t h a n t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t have e x t e n d e d t o same-sex c o u p l e s recognition i n various partnerships, c i v i l and, legal

f o r m s , such as r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c reciprocal beneficiary relationships
2

unions,

more r e c e n t l y , c i v i l As o f 1992,

marriage.

Over t i m e ,

t h e number o f

16 made a v a i l a b l e i n T r a v i s C o u n t y , Texas; Dane C o u n t y , W i s c o n s i n ; 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s h i p b e n e f i t s were

t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u n t i e s o f Alameda, San Mateo and S a n t a C r u z ; and t h e c i t i e s o f B e r k e l e y , Los A n g e l e s , O a k l a n d , Santa C r u z , San F r a n c i s c o , West H o l l y w o o d , New Y o r k , I t h a c a , Cambridge, West Palm Beach, Ann A r b o r , E a s t L a n s i n g , M a d i s o n , M i n n e a p o l i s , S e a t t l e and Tahoma P a r k . 138 Cong. Rec. S10876-01, 1992 WL 180795, a t *S10904. I n A p r i l 1992, t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a a p p r o v e d t h e H e a l t h Care B e n e f i t s E x p a n s i o n A c t , D.C. Law 9-114, e s t a b l i s h i n g a l o c a l domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r y . See a l s o D.C. Code § 36-1401 ( l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f Law 9-114). As d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h i s o r d e r , Congress d e l a y e d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e r e g i s t r y . S i n c e 1997, n i n e t e e n s t a t e s have e x t e n d e d l e g a l r e c o g n i t i o n t o same-sex c o u p l e s f o r p u r p o s e s o f s t a t e l a w . M.V. Lee B a d g e t t , Jody L. Herman, P a t t e r n s o f R e l a t i o n s h i p R e c o g n i t i o n b y Same-Sex Couples i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e W i l l i a m s I n s t i t u t e , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e l e s , S c h o o l o f Law, 1 , n . l , A p p e n d i x 1 , (November 2 011) ( p r o v i d i n g a d e t a i l e d s u r v e y o f t h e v a r i o u s s t a t u s e s , t h e i r e f f e c t i v e dates and r e l e v a n t s t a t u t o r y c i t a t i o n s ) , available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/marriage-andcouples-rights/patterns-of-relationship-recognition-by-same-sexcouples-in-the-united-states/. 6

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fiied05/24/12 Page? of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page8 of 42

1 2 3 4

jurisdictions increased.

g r a n t i n g these

f o r m s o f l e g a l r e c o g n i t i o n has

Congress d i s c u s s e d t o a n d d u r i n g 1996,

r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s h i p laws

prior

when t h e s t a t u t e s c h a l l e n g e d occurred

h e r e were p a s s e d .

5 These d i s c u s s i o n s 6
in April 1992,

a f t e r t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia passed, Care B e n e f i t s E x p a n s i o n A c t , which

the Health

7 e s t a b l i s h e d a domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r y i n t h a t

jurisdiction.

8 C o n g r e s s r e a c t e d t o t h e new l a w b y b a r r i n g any l o c a l o r f e d e r a l 9
f u n d i n g t o implement, enforce or administer the r e g i s t r y .

10 D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a A p p r o p r i a t i o n s A c t , 1993, Pub. L. No. 1 0 2 11
382, 106 S t a t . 1422 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Representative Clyde Holloway argued,

12 " I f t h e r e e v e r was an a t t a c k on t h e f a m i l y i n t h i s c o u n t r y , i t i s 13
[the D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a ' s ] D o m e s t i c P a r t n e r s h i p A c t . . . To me, the families of this country." I n arguing 138 against

14 t h i s b i l l

t o t a l l y destroys

15 Cong. Rec. H2950-04, 1992 WL 9 6 5 2 1 , a t *H2950. 16
the a p p r o p r i a t i o n s ban b e f o r e

t h e S e n a t e , S e n a t o r B r o c k Adams record information d e t a i l i n g

17 e n t e r e d i n t o t h e C o n g r e s s i o n a l

18 d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s h i p r e c o g n i t i o n i n numerous j u r i s d i c t i o n s , - a p a r t 19 20 21 22 ban,
from t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia. 138 Cong. Rec. S10876-01, 1992 WL

180795, a t *S10904. I n 1993, as p a r t o f a s u c c e s s f u l d r i v e t o renew t h e f u n d i n g Ernst I s t o o k a r g u e d , "Nov/, o b v i o u s l y t h i s was more than

Representative

23 p a s s e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a t o e n a b l e p e o p l e , 24 25 26 27 28

a n y t h i n g e l s e , who a r e i n a h o m o s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o r e g i s t e r an

C u r r e n t l y , n i n e s t a t e s and t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia o f f e r r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s h i p s or c i v i l unions w i t h l e g a l r i g h t s c o m p a r a b l e .to m a r r i a g e , a n d s i x s t a t e s a n d t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a p e r m i t same-sex c o u p l e s t o m a r r y . I d . a t 3, T a b l e 1 . 7

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page8 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page9 of 42

1 2

e q u i v a l e n t o f a gay marriage. this particular proposal

T h a t i s one o f t h e r e a s o n s i n my v i e w . "

that

i s abhorrent,

139 Cong.

3 Rec. 4 5 6 7 8

H4353-01, 1993 WL 236117, a t *H4355, *H4358; D i s t r i c t o f Appropriations A c t , 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-127, 107 S t a t .

Columbia 1336

(1993). Other r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s echoed t h e s e arguments i n favor o f

r e n e w i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s ' b a n a n d t h e ban was r e n e w e d e v e r y y e a r from 1993 t h r o u g h 2001.
3

See e.g.,

140 Cong. Rec. H5589-02, 1994 R o b e r t Dornan p r o c l a i m i n g , partner

9 WL 363727, a t *H5601 ( R e p r e s e n t a t i v e 10 11
"From my h i s t o r i c a l knowledge,

t h i s business o f domestic

b e n e f i t s s t a r t e d i n - S e a t t l e where t h e y were t r y i n g treatment

t o give . . . Let

12 p r i v i l e g e d

t o l e s b i a n and h o m o s e x u a l p a r t n e r s

13 us g e t r i d o f t h i s d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s h i p n o n s e n s e . " ) ; 14 Rec. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

141 Cong. Cliff laws

H11627-02, 1995 WL 639923, a t *H11659 ( R e p r e s e n t a t i v e

Stearns a s s e r t i n g t h a t domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r a t i o n "undermine this thetraditional
4

moral values

t h a t are t h e bedrock o f

Nation.").

I n 2 0 0 1 , Congress a u t h o r i z e d a more l i m i t e d a p p r o p r i a t i o n s ban, p e r m i t t i n g t h e use o f n o n - f e d e r a l f u n d s t o i n s t i t u t e a n d a d m i n i s t e r t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r y . D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a A p p r o p r i a t i o n s A c t , 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-96, 115 S t a t . 923 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , i n 2002, t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia f i n a l l y implemented i t s domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r y . See 49 D.C. Reg. 5419 (June 14, 2002) . A more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f C o n g r e s s ' s a c t i o n s t o b l o c k i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia's domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r y i s p r o v i d e d i n t h i s C o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 26, 2012 o r d e r denying Federal Defendants' motion t o dismiss P l a i n t i f f s ' constitutional c h a l l e n g e t o § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) on b e h a l f o f C a l i f o r n i a r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s .
4

3

8

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page9 ofof 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document.124 Filed06/26/12 Page10 41

I

I n 1996, District

as w e l l as r e n e w i n g t h e b a n on f u n d i n g domestic p a r t n e r s h i p

for the

2

o f Columbia

r e g i s t r y , Congress the provisions

3 e n a c t e d t h e DOMA a n d t h e HIPAA, c o n t a i n i n g 4 5
challenged here. It

i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t one s i g n i f i c a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n § 3 o f t h e DOMA was C o n g r e s s ' s desire t o foreclose

6 enacting 7

federal recognition

o f same-sex m a r r i a g e .

H a w a i i was on t h e v e r g e

8 o f becoming t h e f i r s t s t a t e i n t h e n a t i o n t o g r a n t m a r r i a g e 9
licenses t o same-sex c o u p l e s .
5

The House R e p o r t o n t h e p e n d i n g "Civil laws t h a t p e r m i t only

10 b i l l 11

t o e n a c t t h e DOMA s t a t e d ,

heterosexual marriage r e f l e c t

and honor a c o l l e c t i v e m o r a l T h i s judgment e n t a i l s both moral that

12 j u d g m e n t a b o u t human s e x u a l i t y . 13 d i s a p p r o v a l

o f h o m o s e x u a l i t y , and a moral c o n v i c t i o n b e t t e r comports w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l

14 h e t e r o s e x u a l i t y 15 16

(especially The

Judeo-Christian) m o r a l i t y . " r e p o r t adopted t h e view t h a t

H.R. Rep. 104-664, a t 15-16.
, M

[S]ame-sex m a r r i a g e , i f s a n c t i f i e d

17 by t h e l a w , i f a p p r o v e d b y t h e l a w , l e g i t i m a t e s a p u b l i c • u n i o n , a 18 19 20 21 22
legal status t h a t most p e o p l e . . . f e e l o u g h t t o be

illegitimate.'"

I d . a t 16 ( a l t e r a t i o n a n d o m i s s i o n i n o r i g i n a l )

( q u o t i n g R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Henry Hyde, C h a i r m a n o f t h e J u d i c i a r y Committee). Moreover, t h e l i m i t i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f marriage proposed i n§ 3

23 o f t h e DOMA was v i e w e d as n e c e s s a r y t o e x c l u d e r e g i s t e r e d 24 p a r t n e r s 25 26 27 28
from f e d e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n and b e n e f i t s .

domestic

When S e n a t o r Don

The BLAG a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t , when Congress e n a c t e d t h e DOMA, i t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t H a w a i i was on t h e v e r g e o f l e g a l i z i n g same-sex marriage. BLAG Cross M o t . Summ. J . 4. 9

5

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fi!ed05/24/12 PagelO of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564~CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page11 of 42

Nickles introduced the b i l l this, stating,

t h a t became t h e DOMA, he e x p l a i n e d

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
142

A n o t h e r example o f why we need a F e d e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f the t e r m s " m a r r i a g e " a n d " s p o u s e " stems f r o m e x p e r i e n c e d u r i n g d e b a t e on t h e F a m i l y and M e d i c a l Leave A c t o f 1993. S h o r t l y b e f o r e passage o f t h i s a c t , I a t t a c h e d an amendment t h a t d e f i n e d "spouse" as "a h u s b a n d o r w i f e , as t h e case may b e . " When t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Labor p u b l i s h e d h i s proposed r e g u l a t i o n s , a c o n s i d e r a b l e number o f comments were r e c e i v e d u r g i n g t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f " s p o u s e " be " b r o a d e n e d t o i n c l u d e domestic p a r t n e r s i n committed r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i n c l u d i n g same-sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s . " When t h e S e c r e t a r y i s s u e d t h e f i n a l r u l e s he s t a t e d t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f " s p o u s e " and t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y p r e c l u d e d s u c h a broadening o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n . Cong. Rec. 4851-02, 1996 WL 233584, a t *S4869-70. A proposed amendment t o t h e D e f e n s e o f M a r r i a g e b i l l would

have r e q u i r e d t h e G e n e r a l A c c o u n t i n g O f f i c e t o " u n d e r t a k e a s t u d y of t h edifferences i n the b e n e f i t s , r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s r i g h t s and

a v a i l a b l e t o persons

i n a m a r r i a g e and t h e b e n e f i t s , i n a domestic

p r i v i l e g e s a v a i l a b l e t o persons resulting

partnership

f r o m t h e n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n o f d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s h i p s as 142 Cong. Rec. 7480-05,

l e g a l unions by S t a t e and F e d e r a l l a w s . " 1996 WL 392787, a t *H7503.

I n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e amendment,

20 R e p r e s e n t a t i v e C h a r l e s Canady s t a t e d , " T h i s m o t i o n r e p r e s e n t s a 21
t r a n s p a r e n t a t t e m p t t o g i v e some s t a t u t o r y r e c o g n i t i o n t o d o m e s t i c 142 Cong. Rec. 7480-05, 1996 WL 392787, a t *H7504. 142 Cong. Rec. 7480-05, 1996 WL

22 p a r t n e r s h i p s . " 23 24 25 26 27 28
The

amendment was d e f e a t e d .

392787, a t *H7505. Thus, l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y t h a t i s r e l e v a n t t o b o t h § 3 o f t h e DOMA a n d § 7 7 0 2 B { f ) o f T i t l e 26 c o n t a i n s e v i d e n c e o f m o r a l condemnation and s o c i a l d i s a p p r o b a t i o n o f same-sex c o u p l e s .

10

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page12 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Pagell of 41

1
In t h e i r

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND f i r s t motion t o dismiss, Federal Defendants

3 4 5 6 7

addressed

Plaintiffs'

e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n a n d s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s The C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n ,

c h a l l e n g e t o § 3 o f t h e DOMA.

f i n d i n g t h a t , under t h e r a t i o n a l b a s i s s t a n d a r d o f review, Plaintiffs had s t a t e d a c o g n i z a b l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l claim.

At t h e time t h e Court considered t h e f i r s t

motion t o dismiss,

8 Plaintiffs 9

were a l l c o u p l e s l e g a l l y m a r r i e d u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w . however, P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a Second Amended Complaint

Subsequently,

10 a d d i n g as P l a i n t i f f s

R a f a e l V. Dominguez a n d Jose G. H e r m o s i l l o ,

11 who a r e n o t l e g a l l y m a r r i e d , b u t a r e r e g i s t e r e d as d o m e s t i c 12 p a r t n e r s i n C a l i f o r n i a . 13 14 15 16
Federal Defendants moved t o d i s m i s s this

c o m p l a i n t , a r g u i n g t h a t Dominguez a n d H e r m o s i l l o h a d n o t a l l e g e d a c o g n i z a b l e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n o r s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s on § 7 7 0 2 B { f ) ' s f a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c The Court denied t h emotion, h o l d i n g t h a t N i n t h C i r c u i t c l a i m based partners. precedent that

17 p r e c l u d e d i t f r o m a p p l y i n g s t r i c t s c r u t i n y , b u t f i n d i n g 18 19 20 21
the Plaintiffs

had s t a t e d a c l a i m t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n v i o l a t e d t h e test. motions t o dismiss a class

r a t i o n a l basis In

a d d i t i o n t o denying Federal Defendants'

Court granted P l a i n t i f f s '

unopposed m o t i o n t o c e r t i f y 23(b)(2). The

22 p u r s u a n t t o F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 23
certified

c l a s s was d e f i n e d a s , " P r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e

CalPERS

24 members who a r e i n l e g a l l y r e c o g n i z e d same-sex m a r r i a g e s a n d 25
r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s h i p s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e i r spouses a n d

26 p a r t n e r s , who as c o u p l e s a n d f a m i l i e s a r e d e n i e d a c c e s s t o t h e 27 28
11 CalPERS Long-Term Care P r o g r a m on t h e same b a s i s as s i m i l a r l y

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Pagel2 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page13 of 42

1 2 3 4 5 6

s i t u a t e d p r e s e n t and f u t u r e CalPERS members who a r e i n o p p o s i t e sex m a r r i a g e s , a n d t h e i r s p o u s e s . " The summary D o c k e t No. 92. cross-motions f o r

C o u r t now c o n s i d e r s t h e p a r t i e s ' judgment. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary j u d g m e n t

i s p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d when no g e n u i n e a n d

7 d i s p u t e d i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t r e m a i n , a n d when, v i e w i n g t h e 8 e v i d e n c e most f a v o r a b l y t o t h e n o n - m o v i n g p a r t y , t h e movant i s 9 c l e a r l y e n t i t l e d t o p r e v a i l as a m a t t e r o f l a w . 10 11 12 13
56; C e l o t e x Corp. v . C a t r e t t , Fed. R. C i v . P.

477 U.S. 317, 322-23 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; 1288-89 (9th C i r .

E i s e n b e r g v . I n s . Co. o f N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1987) . The m o v i n g p a r t y b e a r s t h e b u r d e n

o f showing

t h a t t h e r e i s no

14 m a t e r i a l f a c t u a l d i s p u t e .

T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o u r t must r e g a r d as

15 t r u e t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s e v i d e n c e , i f s u p p o r t e d b y a f f i d a v i t s o r 16 17
other evidentiary material. 815 F.2d a t 1289. C e l o t e x , 477 U.S. a t 324; E i s e n b e r g ,

The c o u r t must draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i s sought.

18 i n f a v o r o f t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom summary j u d g m e n t

19 M a t s u s h i t a E l e c . I n d u s . Co. v . Z e n i t h R a d i o Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 20 21 22
587 F.2d ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; I n t e l Corp. v . H a r t f o r d A c c i d e n t & Indem. Co., 952 1551, 1558 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) . judgment

M a t e r i a l f a c t s w h i c h w o u l d p r e c l u d e e n t r y o f summary

23 a r e t h o s e w h i c h , u n d e r a p p l i c a b l e s u b s t a n t i v e l a w , may a f f e c t t h e 24 25 26 27 28
12 outcome o f t h e case. facts are material. 242, 248. (1986) . The s u b s t a n t i v e l a w w i l l identify which

A n d e r s o n v . L i b e r t y Lobby, I n c . , 477 U.S.

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page14 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Pagel3 of 41

1

DISCUSSION I. Equal Protection same-sex spouses c l a i m t h a t t h e i r r i g h t s t o equal

2 3

Plaintiff

4 p r o t e c t i o n a r e v i o l a t e d b y § 3 o f t h e DOMA. 5
Plaintiff

I n addition, equal

r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s assert t h a t t h e i r

6 p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s a r e i n f r i n g e d b y § 3 o f t h e DOMA a n d § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) 7
of Title 26. The d o c t r i n e o f e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n e x i s t s t o e n s u r e

8 the

C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s promise o f equal t r e a t m e n t under t h e law.

9 Romer v . Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 6 3 1 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . 10 11 12 13
The BLAG r e l i e s h e a v i l y on t w o eases, U.S. 810 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , a n d Adams v . H o w e r t o n , 1982), t o argue t h a t P l a i n t i f f s ' of t h e DOMA i s f o r e c l o s e d . Baker v. Nelson, 40 9

673 F.2d 1036 ( 9 t h C i r .

equal p r o t e c t i o n challenge t o § 3 t h e Supreme C o u r t summarily

I n Baker,

14 d i s m i s s e d an a p p e a l f r o m t h e M i n n e s o t a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o 15 u p h o l d , a g a i n s t a f e d e r a l e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e , a s t a t e l a w 16 p r o h i b i t i n g same-sex c i v i l m a r r i a g e . 17
The C o u r t r e s o l v e d t h e

a p p e a l i n a s i n g l e s e n t e n c e , s t a t i n g t h a t i t was " d i s m i s s e d f o r 409 U.S. a t 810.

18 w a n t o f a s u b s t a n t i a l f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n . " 19 20 21 22 23 24

Mandel v . B r a d l e y , 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)', e x p l a i n s t h e p r e c e d e n t i a l w e i g h t o f a summary a c t i o n b y t h e Supreme C o u r t . M a n d e l i n v o l v e d an i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e ' s c l a i m t h a t under procedures

t h e M a r y l a n d E l e c t i o n Code v i o l a t e d h i s F i r s t a n d F o u r t e e n t h r i g h t s t o access t o t h e b a l l o t b y i m p o s i n g an e a r l y I d . a t 174. Prior t o

Amendment

deadline f o r f i l i n g

nominating p e t i t i o n s .

25 M a n d e l , t h e Supreme C o u r t h a d s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m e d a l o w e r c o u r t ' s 26 27 28
d e c i s i o n i n v a l i d a t i n g Pennsylvania's procedures c a n d i d a t e s t o access the theb a l l o t . f o r independent that

I n Mandel, t h e C o u r t h e l d case d i d n o t mandate t h e

summary a f f i r m a n c e i n i t s p r i o r 13

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page14 ofof 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page15 41

1

r e s u l t reached by t h e d i s t r i c t t h e Pennsylvania

c o u r t because, u n l i k e t h e Maryland e n t a i l e d b o t h an e a r l y -

2 procedure, 3
filing

requirements

d a t e and a t w e n t y - o n e day l i m i t a t i o n on s i g n a t u r e I d . a t 177. The C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t "a summary I d . a t 176.

4 gathering.

5 a f f i r m a n c e i s an a f f i r m a n c e o f t h e j u d g m e n t o n l y . " 6 The 7
Court

f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d , "Summary a f f i r m a n c e s a n d d i s m i s s a l s federal question . . . prevent lower

f o r want o f a s u b s t a n t i a l

8 c o u r t s f r o m coming t o o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e p r e c i s e i s s u e s 9 p r e s e n t e d and n e c e s s a r i l y d e c i d e d by those a c t i o n s . " 10 H i c k s v . M i r a n d a , 422 U.S. 332, 344-45 (1975) 11
Supreme C o u r t ' s Id.; cf.

(holding that the

p r i o r summary a f f i r m a n c e o f a C a l i f o r n i a a p p e l l a t e

12 d e c i s i o n u p h o l d i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f an o b s c e n i t y s t a t u t e 13 p r e c l u d e d a t h r e e - j u d g e f e d e r a l c o u r t f r o m f i n d i n g t h a t t h e same 14 15
s t a t u t e was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . ) The N i n t h C i r c u i t r e c e n t l y addressed t h e p r e c e d e n t i a l value

16 o f B a k e r , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e t o 17 P r o p o s i t i o n 8, a b a l l o t measure t h a t e l i m i n a t e d t h e r i g h t t o m a r r y 18
f o r same-sex c o u p l e s i nCalifornia. There, t h e c o u r t considered pertinent,"

19 Mandel a n d H i c k s , a n d d e t e r m i n e d

t h a t Baker was " n o t

20 b e c a u s e "we do n o t a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
o f a s t a t e ' s ban on same-sex m a r r i a g e . " 1052, 1082 n.14 (9th C i r . 2012). P e r r y v . Brown, 671 F.3d reasoned that

The N i n t h C i r c u i t

t h e case b e f o r e i t p r e s e n t e d the people or b e n e f i t , enjoyed

"a w h o l l y d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n : w h e t h e r s t r i p a group o f a r i g h t

o f a s t a t e may b y p l e b i s c i t e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r otherwise, t h a t they had p r e v i o u s l y

on t e r m s o f e q u a l i t y w i t h a l l o t h e r s i n t h e s t a t e . " I d . Whereas

L i k e w i s e , t h i s case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m B a k e r .

t h e a c t i o n i n Baker a d d r e s s e d w h e t h e r M i n n e s o t a v i o l a t e d t h e e q u a l 14

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 PagelS of 41 Case4: lO-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page16 of 42

1 p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e b y e x c l u d i n g same-sex c o u p l e s f r o m 2 marriage, the married P l a i n t i f f s

civil legal

h e r e have a l r e a d y g a i n e d The i s s u e i s i n s t e a d

3 r e c o g n i t i o n under C a l i f o r n i a law. 4
federal provision,

-whether a rights

§ 3 o f t h e DOMA, i n f r i n g e s P l a i n t i f f s '

5 u n d e r e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e s b y d e n y i n g them a b e n e f i t 6 a v a i l a b l e t o l e g a l l y married heterosexual couples. 7
in this district has d i s t i n g u i s h e d Another judge

B a k e r i n t h e c o n t e x t o f an Golinski v . U.S. O f f i c e o f (granting summary

8 action challenging 9 10 11 12 13 14
in

§ 3 o f t h e DOMA.

P e r s . Mgmt., 2012 WL 569685, *8 n.5 (N.D. C a l . ) judgment i n f a v o r Plaintiffs' o fp l a i n t i f f ) .

B a k e r does n o t f o r e c l o s e

equal p r o t e c t i o n

claim. national

I n Adams, a U n i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n a n d a n A u s t r a l i a n a same-sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s e c u r e d a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e

from a

county c l e r k i n Colorado. Naturalization

The c i t i z e n p e t i t i o n e d t h e I m m i g r a t i o n

15 and

S e r v i c e t o p e r m i t h i s spouse t o r e m a i n i n t h e

16 c o u n t r y as an " i m m e d i a t e r e l a t i v e , " p u r s u a n t t o § 2 0 1 ( b ) o f t h e 17 18 19 20 21
I m m i g r a t i o n a n d N a t i o n a l i t y A c t o f 1952 ( I N A ) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 5 1 ( b ) . F o l l o w i n g t h e agency's d e n i a l administrative action Ninth decision o f h i s p e t i t i o n and a f i n a l

d e n y i n g h i s a p p e a l , t h e c o u p l e f i l e d an on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u n d s . The

challenging

the exclusion

C i r c u i t stated

t h a t , even i f C o l o r a d o r e c o g n i z e d t h e based The

22 m a r r i a g e , Congress d i d n o t i n t e n d t o c o n f e r s p o u s a l s t a t u s 23 24 25 26 27 28
on same-sex m a r r i a g e s u n d e r § 2 0 1 ( b ) . 673 F.2d a t 1 0 4 0 - 4 1 .

court the

a r r i v e d a t i t s s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b a s e d on i t s v i e w o f m e a n i n g o f m a r r i a g e , a n d a 19 65 a mandatory e x c l u s i o n amendment t o t h e INA inadmissible

ordinary

establishing aliens.

o f h o m o s e x u a l s as

The m a n d a t o r y e x c l u s i o n

e v i d e n c e d Congress's " c l e a r l y I d . a t 1040. The

express[ed]

[ ] i n t e n t t o exclude homosexuals." 15

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Pagel6 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page17 of 42

1

court also determined

that the legislative I d . a t 1041-43.

exclusion withstood The c o u r t f o u n d that

2 constitutional scrutiny. 3 4 5 6

t h e d e n i a l o f l e g a l r e c o g n i t i o n t o same-sex spouses s a t i s f i e d t h e r a t i o n a l b a s i s t e s t i n t h a t Congress m a n i f e s t e d a c o n c e r n f o r family integrity i n p a s s i n g laws f a c i l i t a t i n g the immigration of The c o u r t a l s o

spouses i n v a l i d h e t e r o s e x u a l m a r r i a g e s .

7 d e t e r m i n e d , w i t h l i t t l e d i s c u s s i o n , t h a t Congress c o u l d have 8 d e t e r m i n e d t h a t l e g a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f same-sex m a r r i a g e s was n o t 9 necessary 10 11 12 13
any, i n t h a t such c o u p l e s x^ere n o t r e c o g n i z e d i n most, i f

s t a t e s b e c a u s e t h e y v i o l a t e t r a d i t i o n a l and o f t e n

prevailing Id. at

s o c i a l mores, o r because t h e y " n e v e r p r o d u c e o f f s p r i n g . " 1042-43. Adams does n o t c o n t r o l t h i s

case i n l i g h t o f Supreme C o u r t

14 and N i n t h C i r c u i t r u l i n g s a n d l e g i s l a t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t s s i n c e t h e 15 d e c i s i o n . 16
2003) I n M i l l e r v . Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.

(en b a n c ) , t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t e x p l a i n e d t h a t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t

17 o r a t h r e e - j u d g e p a n e l i s f r e e t o r e - e x a m i n e t h e h o l d i n g o f a 18 p r i o r p a n e l when t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , o r a c o n t r o l l i n g 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
s t a t e Supreme C o u r t r u l i n g , has " u n d e r c u t t h e t h e o r y o r r e a s o n i n g i n s u c h a way t h a t t h e "[T]he issues

u n d e r l y i n g t h e p r i o r c i r c u i t precedent cases a r e c l e a r l y i r r e c o n c i l a b l e . "

I d . a t 900.

d e c i d e d b y t h e h i g h e r c o u r t need n o t be i d e n t i c a l i n o r d e r t o be controlling." Id. a prior

S i m i l a r l y , under N i n t h C i r c u i t p r e c e d e n t ,

d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e c o u r t i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g i f subsequent l e g i s l a t i o n has u n d e r m i n e d t h e d e c i s i o n . C a r i l l o v. A s h c r o f t , 322 F.3d 1166, For example, i n Zazueta(9th C i r . 2003), t h e

1170-72

N i n t h C i r c u i t p a n e l f o u n d t h a t i t was r e q u i r e d t o r e v i s i t an 16

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fi!ed05/24/12 Pagel7 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page18 of 42

1 2 3

e x i s t i n g r u l e "on a c l e a n s l a t e , " b e c a u s e s u b s e q u e n t

legislation

by C o n g r e s s changed t h e l a n d s c a p e o f i m m i g r a t i o n l a w a n d a l l e v i a t e d the concerns t h a t m o t i v a t e d the r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d i n a

4 prior Ninth Circuit decision. 5 6 7
Several d e v e l o p m e n t s s i n c e Adams d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e bases no l o n g e r a p p l y , so t h a t t h e case i s n o t i n Lawrence v . Texas s t r u c k holding that social tradition for

f o r i t s reasoning controlling.

First,

t h e Supreme C o u r t

8 down l a w s c r i m i n a l i z i n g h o m o s e x u a l i t y , 9 disapproval o f homosexuality 10 11 12

on t h e b a s i s o f a s s e r t e d as s u f f i c i e n t

and mores i s no l o n g e r a c c e p t e d laws b u r d e n i n g

justification

g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s .

539 U.S. 558, 577 (2003)

( a d o p t i n g J u s t i c e S t e v e n s ' d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n Bowers v . The N i n t h C i r c u i t r e c e n t l y

13 H a r d w i c k , 478 U.S. 186, 216 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ) .

14 h e l d t h a t " t r a d i t i o n a l o n e i s n o t a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t a k i n g away 15 16 17
a r i g h t t h a t h a d a l r e a d y been g r a n t e d , i n derogation of t r a d i t i o n . " Further, i n 1990, Perry, even t h o u g h t h a t g r a n t was

671 F.3d a t 1092.

Congress removed t h e m a n d a t o r y p r o v i s i o n i n

18 t h e INA, upon w h i c h Adams r e l i e d , t h a t b a r r e d g a y a n d l e s b i a n 19 20 ,21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
17 individuals from r e c e i v i n g v i s a s and g a i n i n g admission Sec. 6 0 1 , I m m i g r a t i o n A c t o f 1990, into the

United States.

Pub. L. No.

101-649, 104 S t a t . 4978

(amending 8 U.S.C. § 1182 t o e l i m i n a t e

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page.18 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page19 of 42

1

subsection

( a ) ( 4 ) , which had excluded those " a f f l i c t e d w i t h a

2 psychopathic p e r s o n a l i t y , sexual d e v i a t i o n , o r a mental 3 defect."). 4
6

Moreover, i n c o n t r a s t

t o t h e s t a t e o f t h e l a w i n 1982, as s t a t e s , as w e l l as t h e D i s t r i c t o f

5 Adams r e c i t e d i t , now s e v e r a l

6 C o l u m b i a , o f f e r l e g a l r e c o g n i t i o n t o same-sex c o u p l e s i n t h e f o r m 7 of r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s h i p , 8 designation. 9
F i n a l l y , Adams' r a t i o n a l e t h a t same-sex c o u p l e s n e v e r p r o d u c e civil marriage or a s i m i l a r

10 c h i l d r e n has been p r o v e n f a l s e : same-sex c o u p l e s u s e v a r i o u s 11
methods t o c o n c e i v e a n d a d o p t c h i l d r e n . The a b i l i t y o f same-sex See

12 c o u p l e s t o have c h i l d r e n i s r e c o g n i z e d i n t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t .

13 P e r r y , 671 F.3d a t 1086-87 ( n o t i n g a l o n g l i n e o f C a l i f o r n i a c a s e s 14 g r a n t i n g p a r e n t a l 15
state's "current r i g h t s t o gay a n d l e s b i a n p a r e n t s and t h a t t h e p o l i c i e s a n d c o n d u c t r e c o g n i z e t h a t gay caring f o r and

16 i n d i v i d u a l s a r e f u l l y c a p a b l e o f r e s p o n s i b l y 17 r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n . " )
(alterations omitted). claims.

Adams i s n o t f a t a l t o

18 P l a i n t i f f s ' e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n 19 20

S e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) o f t h e INA o f 1952 h a d e x c l u d e d " [ a l l i e n s a f f l i c t e d w i t h a psychopathic p e r s o n a l i t y , epilepsy, or a mental 22 d e f e c t . " I n 1965, Congress e l i m i n a t e d e p i l e p s y a n d added " s e x u a l deviation." Pub. L. No. 414, 66 S t a t . 163, 182, amended b y A c t o f 23 Oct. 3, 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-236, § 1 5 ( b ) , 79 S t a t . 9 1 1 , 919 The e n t i r e 24 ( c o d i f i e d as amended.at 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( 1 9 8 8 ) ) . p r o v i s i o n was e l i m i n a t e d b y t h e I m m i g r a t i o n A c t o f 1990, Pub. L. 25 No. 101-649, 104 S t a t . 4978 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . See Shannon M i n t e r , Sodomy and P u b l i c M o r a l i t y O f f e n s e s Under U.S. I m m i g r a t i o n Law: 26 P e n a l i z i n g L e s b i a n a n d Gay I d e n t i t y , 26 C o r n e l l I n t ' l L . J . 7 7 1 , 775-83 (1993) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h e h i s t o r y o f s t a t u t o r y p r o \ i s i o n s 27 b a r r i n g g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s f r o m i m m i g r a t i n g t o t h e U n i t e d 28 S t a t e s ) .

21

6

r

18

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fi!ed05/24/12 Pagel9 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page20 of 42

1 2 3 4

Under t h e d o c t r i n e o f e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n ,

certain s u c h as

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s by s t a t u t e o r o t h e r government a c t i v i t y ,

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s b a s e d on r a c e , have been f o u n d t o be s u s p e c t . H a r r i s v . McRae, 448 U.S. 2 9 7 , 322 (1980) ( n o t i n g r a c e as " t h e Where a strict

5 p r i n c i p a l example" o f a " s u s p e c t " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) . 6 7
c h a l l e n g e d law burdens a suspect class, courts apply

s c r u t i n y t o determine t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y See Mass. Bd. o f R e t , v . M u r g i a ,

of the 312

8 provision. 9
(1976).

427 U.S. 307,

Such l a w s a r e " p r e s u m p t i v e l y i n v a l i d a n d c a n be u p h e l d P e r s . Adm'r o f Mass.

10 o n l y upon an e x t r a o r d i n a r y j u s t i f i c a t i o n . " 11
v . Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .

C o u r t s a p p l y an i n t e r m e d i a t e such

12 l e v e l o f s c r u t i n y t o c e r t a i n q u a s i - s u s p e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , 13 as t h o s e b a s e d upon s e x , w h i c h "have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been t h e 14 t o u c h s t o n e f o r p e r v a s i v e a n d o f t e n s u b t l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " 15 273.
A l a w t h a t does n o t b u r d e n

I d . at

a protected class i s subject t o a

16 l o w e r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a n d need o n l y " b e a r [ ] a r a t i o n a l 17 18
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o some l e g i t i m a t e e n d . " The Romer, 517 U.S. a t 6 3 1 .

N i n t h C i r c u i t has h e l d ' t h a t g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s do n o t H i g h Tech Gays v .

19 c o n s t i t u t e a s u s p e c t o r q u a s i - s u s p e c t c l a s s . 20 21 22 23 24
Def. I n d u s . Sec. C l e a r a n c e 1990). Office,

895 F.2d 563, 574 ( 9 t h C i r .

N i n t h C i r c u i t p a n e l s have c o n t i n u e d t o u t i l i z e t h e

r a t i o n a l b a s i s s t a n d a r d a p p l i e d i n H i g h Tech Gays, even a f t e r t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s i n Romer, 517 U.S. a t 620, a n d L a w r e n c e , 539 U.S. a t 577, w h i c h invalidated certain legislative enactments

25 b u r d e n i n g g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s . 26 27 28
F.3d

See e.g., P h i l i p s v . P e r r y , 106

1420, 1425 ( 9 t h C i r . 1997) ( h o l d i n g t h a t H i g h Tech Gays was strict

c o n t r o l l i n g and r e j e c t i n g r e q u e s t by a m i c i c u r i a e t o a p p l y s c r u t i n y ) ; W i t t v . Dep't o f A i r F o r c e , 19

527 F.3d 806, 821 ( 9 t h C i r .

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page20 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page21 of 42

1

2008)

( h o l d i n g t h a t b e c a u s e Lawrence d e c l i n e d t o a d d r e s s i t did not disturb Philips' equal p r o t e c t i o n

equal ruling

protection,

3 under t h e r a t i o n a l b a s i s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w ) . 4

More r e c e n t l y , i n that

P e r r y , 671 F.3d a t 1080 n s . 1 3 , 19, t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t s t a t e d

5 i t need n o t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r a n y f o r m o f h e i g h t e n e d s c r u t i n y was 6 7
necessary couples. or appropriate with respect t o t h ep l a i n t i f f same-sex

P e r r y a p p l i e d r a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w based on Romer a n d

8 n o t e d t h a t H i g h Tech Gays h a d h e l d t h a t h e i g h t e n e d s c r u t i n y d i d 9 not apply.
A l t h o u g h t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t may r e v i s i t i t s ruling that

10 gay men a n d l e s b i a n s do n o t c o n s t i t u t e a s u s p e c t o r q u a s i - s u s p e c t 11
c l a s s , t h e C o u r t t e s t s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f § 3 o f t h e DOMA o f T i t l e 26, p u r s u a n t t o c u r r e n t N i n t h C i r c u i t law,

12 and § 7 7 0 2 B ( f )

13 b y a p p l y i n g r a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w . 14 15 16 17
Under t h i s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , a l a w t h a t imposes a

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n must be r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e f u r t h e r a n c e o f a legitimate of state interest. Romer, 517 U.S. a t 631. This standard

review accords

a strong presumption

ofvalidity to legislative "[I]t is

18 e n a c t m e n t s .

H e l l e r v . Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 ( 1 9 9 3 ) .

19 e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p u r p o s e s w h e t h e r t h e 20 21
conceived the reason f o r the challenged d i s t i n c t i o n actually motivated

legislature."

FCC v . Beach Comm., 508 U.S. 307, 313 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Mathews

22 N e v e r t h e l e s s , r a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w i s n o t " t o o t h l e s s . " 23 v. De C a s t r o , 429 U.S. 1 8 1 , 185 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . 24 25 26 27
e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n case c a l l i n g standards, [courts] i n s i s t

"[E]ven i n t h e ordinary

f o r t h e most d e f e r e n t i a l o f

on k n o w i n g t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e G i l l v. 387 (D.

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n adopted

a n d t h e o b j e c t t o be a t t a i n e d . "

U n i t e d S t a t e s O f f i c e o f P e r s . Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374,

28 Mass. 2010) ( q u o t i n g Romer, 517 U.S. a t 6 3 3 ) .
20

Case4:10-cv-0.1564-CW Documentl.24 Filed06/26/12 Page22 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page21 of 41

1

I n Romer, t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s , as a c l a s s , a r e a t l e a s t p r o t e c t e d f r o m burdensome legislation o f any that

2

3 t h a t i s the product 4

o f s h e e r a n t i - g a y animus a n d d e v o i d 517 U.S. a t 632-35 indeed

l e g i t i m a t e government purpose.

{holding

5 C o l o r a d o ' s a n t i - g a y b a l l o t measure " f a i l s ,

d e f i e s , even test).

6 t h i s c o n v e n t i o n a l i n q u i r y " a p p l i e d under t h e r a t i o n a l b a s i s 7
In Perry, t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t a p p l i e d Romer a n d f o u n d that

8 P r o p o s i t i o n 8 was a n e n a c t m e n t d e v o i d o f a n y r a t i o n a l

relationship tainted

9 t o a l e g i t i m a t e s t a t e i n t e r e s t a n d was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y 10 by a n t i - g a y a n i m u s . 11
671 F.3d a t 1086-95. Accordingly, i n

applying the r a t i o n a l basis t e s t ,

t h i s Court considers t h e

12 e v i d e n c e o f a n t i - g a y animus i n t h e r e c o r d o f C o n g r e s s ' s 13
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f § 3 o f t h e DOMA a n d § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) o f T i t l e 26, a l o n g

14 w i t h p o s s i b l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n s . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
21 A. A p p l i c a t i o n o f R a t i o n a l B a s i s T e s t t o Same-Sex Spouses' C h a l l e n g e t o § 3 o f t h e DOMA c o n t e n d t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA i m p e r m i s s i b l y

Plaintiffs

e x c l u d e s same-sex s p o u s e s f r o m t h e f e d e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f m a r r i a g e b a s e d on animus t o w a r d s gay men a n d l e s b i a n s a n d t h e i r relationships. The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y d e s c r i b e d above

d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t animus t o w a r d , homosexuality Congressional

and m o r a l r e j e c t i o n o f ,

a n d same-sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e a p p a r e n t i n t h e record. The BLAG does n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e

l e g i s l a t i v e r e c o r d i s f r e e o f m o r a l c o n d e m n a t i o n o f gay men a n d lesbians. Rather, i t a s s e r t s s e v e r a l r a t i o n a l e s i n defense o f § 3

o f t h e DOMA.

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page22 of 41 Case4:lQ-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page23 of 42

1

1.

An A c t o f C a u t i o n t o P r e s e r v e t h e S t a t u s Quo t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA i s a l e g i t i m a t e a c t o f This

2

The BLAG a s s e r t s

3 caution t o p r o t e c t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f t r a d i t i o n a l marriage. 4 5
argument i s f a u l t y f o r two reasons. First, t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f m a r r i a g e as an i n s t i t u t i o n

that

6 e x c l u d e s g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s f o r t h e sake o f t r a d i t i o n i s n o t a 7
l e g i t i m a t e governmental i n t e r e s t . As d i s c u s s e d above, t h e N i n t h

8 C i r c u i t has d i s a p p r o v e d " t r a d i t i o n " as a p e r m i s s i b l e p o l i c y g o a l 9 i n e l i m i n a t i n g r i g h t s p r e v i o u s l y e x t e n d e d t o same-sex 10 P e r r y , • 671 F.3d a t 1092-93. 11
Section couples.

3 o f t h e DOMA e l i m i n a t e d

numerous e s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l r i g h t s g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o m a r r i e d

12 c o u p l e s b y p r e c l u d i n g f e d e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f same-sex c o u p l e s 13
l e g a l l y married under s t a t e law. Under e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n reason t o

14 j u r i s p r u d e n c e , t r a d i t i o n i s n o t a l e g a l l y a c c e p t a b l e

15 p r o h i b i t a p r a c t i c e t h a t h i s t o r i c a l l y has been t h e s u b j e c t o f 16 17
social disapprobation. 466 U.S. 429, 433 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , t h e Supreme of a

I n Palmore v . S i d o t i ,

18 C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d

t h a t , while a c h i l d l i v i n g w i t h a stepparent

19 d i f f e r e n t r a c e may e x p e r i e n c e " p r e s s u r e s a n d s t r e s s e s " t h a t w o u l d 20 n o t be p r e s e n t 21 22
racial reality origin, i f t h e c h i l d were l i v i n g w i t h p a r e n t s o f t h e same "the

under t h e d o c t r i n e o f equal p r o t e c t i o n , i s not a permissible

of private biases"

consideration f o r

23 t h e r e m o v a l o f a c h i l d f r o m t h e c u s t o d y o f h i s o r h e r n a t u r a l 24 p a r e n t . 25 26 27 28
The C o u r t s t a t e d , " P r i v a t e b i a s e s may be o u t s i d e t h e give

reach o f t h e law, b u t t h e law cannot, d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , them e f f e c t . " I d . Likewise, relationships, i n the context o f same-sex i n t i m a c y a n d

t h e Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t " t h e f a c t t h a t t h e 22

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page24 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page23 of 41

1

governing

m a j o r i t y i n a S t a t e has t r a d i t i o n a l l y v i e w e d a

2 p a r t i c u l a r p r a c t i c e as i m m o r a l i s n o t a s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r 3 upholding 4
577 a law p r o h i b i t i n g t h ep r a c t i c e . " L a w r e n c e , 53 9 U.S. a t

( a d o p t i n g J u s t i c e S t e v e n s ' d i s s e n t i n Bowers, 478 U.S. a t
7

5 216) . 6
could

The C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t " n e i t h e r h i s t o r y n o r t r a d i t i o n save a l a w p r o h i b i t i n g m i s c e g e n a t i o n f r o m constitutional

7 attack." I d . 8 9 gay 10 11 12 13
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e i s no p r i n c i p l e d - d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n animus and a c o n c e p t i o n of c i v i l anti-

m a r r i a g e as an i n s t i t u t i o n In

t h a t c a n n o t t o l e r a t e e q u a l l y c o m m i t t e d same-sex c o u p l e s . Perry, 8, theNinth Circuit

rejected the contention that Proposition of c i v i l m a r r i a g e f o r same-sex with marriage, 671 F.3d a t

eliminating the designation

couples,

but not the substantive

r i g h t s associated

14 was 15 16
1093.

intended

o n l y t o d i s a p p r o v e o f same-sex m a r r i a g e .

Rather, t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t sent are o f lesser worth

"a message t h a t enjoy

gays a n d l e s b i a n s

as a c l a s s — t h a t t h e y

17 a l e s s e r s o c i e t a l s t a t u s . " 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Lawrence d i s c u s s e d

I d . Similarly,

t h e Supreme C o u r t i n criminalizing

t h e "stigma"

g e n e r a t e d by laws

A l t h o u g h t h e m a j o r i t y i n Lawrence i n v a l i d a t e d s t a t e l a w s c r i m i n a l i z i n g sodomy on s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s g r o u n d s , a n d d i d n o t r e l y on e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n a r g u m e n t s p e r t a i n i n g t o gays a n d l e s b i a n s as a c l a s s , t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t i n P e r r y c i t e d t h e d e c i s i o n in i t s equal p r o t e c t i o n r u l i n g . 671 F.3d a t 1092-93. Perry r e a s o n e d t h a t " l a w s a f f e c t i n g gays a n d l e s b i a n s ' r i g h t s o f t e n r e g u l a t e i n d i v i d u a l c o n d u c t — w h a t s e x u a l a c t i v i t y p e o p l e may u n d e r t a k e i n t h e p r i v a c y o f t h e i r own homes, o r who i s p e r m i t t e d t o m a r r y whom" a n d , t h u s , such l a w s r e g u l a t e s t a t u s as much as they r e g u l a t e conduct. I d . a t 1093 ( c i t i n g C h r i s t i a n L e g a l Soc'y v. M a r t i n e z , U.S. , 130 S. C t . 2971, 2990 (2010) ( d e c l i n i n g " t o d i s t i n g u i s h between s t a t u s and c o n d u c t " i n t h e c o n t e x t o f sexual o r i e n t a t i o n ) ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , P e r r y f o u n d Lawrence r e l e v a n t to i t s equal p r o t e c t i o n a n a l y s i s . 23

7

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page24 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page25 of 42

1

h o m o s e x u a l c o n d u c t and s t a t e d subject and

t h a t such l a w s a r e "an i n v i t a t i o n t o

2 3 4

homosexual persons t o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b o t h i n t h e p u b l i c 539 U.S. a t 575. The n o t i o n that

i n t h e p r i v a t e spheres."

c i v i l m a r r i a g e may o n l y

sanction

a u n i o n b e t w e e n a man and a woman about

5 posits that there

i s something i n h e r e n t l y o b j e c t i o n a b l e

6 h o m o s e x u a l i t y o r t h a t same-sex i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e 7
i r r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h t h e core c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f marriage. from t h e f e d e r a l

8 S i n g l i n g o u t same-sex spouses f o r e x c l u s i o n 9 10 11 12

d e f i n i t i o n o f m a r r i a g e amounts t o a b a r e e x p r e s s i o n o f animus on t h e b a s i s o f s e x u a l o r i e n t a t i o n and, does n o t s a t i s f y r a t i o n a l b a s i s Nor u n d e r Romer, t h i s rationale

review. step. The

was § 3 o f t h e DOMA a c a u t i o u s l e g i s l a t i v e

13 measure e s t a b l i s h e d

an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d f e d e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f

14 m a r r i a g e l i m i t i n g i t t o h e t e r o s e x u a l c o u p l e s , and p r e e m p t i n g any 15 16 17 18
opportunity t o t e s t t h e impact o f s t a t e laws e v o l v i n g t o recognize

same-sex m a r r i a g e . 1,138 federal

The G e n e r a l A c c o u n t i n g O f f i c e has i d e n t i f i e d i n which m a r i t a l status and p r i v i l e g e s . " Update t o P r i o r i sa General

statutory provisions

factor i n determining "benefits,

rights,

19 A c c o u n t i n g O f f i c e , Defense o f M a r r i a g e A c t :

20 R e p o r t , GAO-04-353R, a t 1 ( J a n u a r y 23, 2 0 0 4 ) , 21 22 23 24 25
www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf. Through a s i n g l e federal law,

e n a c t e d b e f o r e any s t a t e g r a n t e d m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s c o u p l e s , Congress f o r e c l o s e d therecognition

t o same-sex

o f same-sex spouses provisions. 8 was n o t

f o r any p u r p o s e u n d e r a s w e e p i n g r a n g e o f f e d e r a l In Perry, t h eNinth

C i r c u i t found t h a t Proposition

26 p l a u s i b l y a measure o f c a u t i o n 27 28

for i t erected a barrier t o a means o f c a r e f u l

i n c r e m e n t a l p o l i c y - m a k i n g and d i d n o t i n c l u d e consideration,

such as a t i m e - s p e c i f i c m o r a t o r i u m on same-sex 24

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fi!ed05/24/12 Page25 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page26 of 42

1

marriage.

Given t h e f e d e r a l government's l o n g - s t a n d i n g

deference

2

t o s t a t e law in, the

a r e a o f d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s , t h e BLAG's measure i s n o t 2012 WL 569685 a t *24

3 r a t i o n a l e t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n was a c a u t i o n a r y 4 plausible. 5
671 F.3d a t 1090; see G o l i n s k i ,

("The p a s s a g e o f DOMA marks a s t a r k d e p a r t u r e f r o m t r a d i t i o n a n d a o f the well-accepted concept o f f e d e r a l i s m i n

6 blatant disregard

7 t h e a r e a o f d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s . " ) , a p p e a l s d o c k e t e d , Nos. 12-15388 8 and
12-15409 (9th C i r . ) ; Gill, 699 F. Supp. 2 d a t 392 ( f i n d i n g

9 t h a t DOMA " m a r k [ e d ] t h e f i r s t t i m e t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t h a s e v e r 10 a t t e m p t e d t o l e g i s l a t i v e l y mandate a u n i f o r m f e d e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f 11
m a r r i a g e — o r any o t h e r core concept o f domestic r e l a t i o n s , for

12 t h a t m a t t e r " ) .

S e c t i o n 3 o f t h e DOMA d i d n o t p r e v e n t t h e s t a t e s thus, i t

13 f r o m a l l o w i n g n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l , same-sex m a r r i a g e s and, 14 15 16

c r e a t e d a new s c h i s m b e t w e e n s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s law. I n sum, C o n g r e s s ' s h y p o t h e s i z e d d e s i r e the t o exercise caution by

17 p r e s e r v i n g 18

t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f marriage i s n o t a § 3 o f t h e DOMA m a r k e d a s i g n i f i c a n t

legitimate justification;

19 d e p a r t u r e f r o m f e d e r a l d e f e r e n c e t o t h e s t a t e s ' a u t h o r i t y i n 20 21 22
The defining marriage. 2. Protecting t h e Public Fisc

BLAG f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA i s j u s t i f i e d as

23 an e n a c t m e n t d e s i g n e d t o c o n s e r v e s c a r c e g o v e r n m e n t r e s o u r c e s . 24 25 26 27 28
The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f § 3 o f t h e DOMA as a c o s t - s a v i n g measure i s a o f debate. F o r e x a m p l e , as t h e BLAG h a s r e c o g n i z e d , t h e

subject

C o n g r e s s i o n a l Budget O f f i c e has o p i n e d t h a t f e d e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f same-sex m a r r i a g e -would r e s u l t i n a n e t b e n e f i t t o t h e f e d e r a l treasury. BLAG's C r o s s M o t . Summ. J . a t 2 1 n.6 ( c i t i n g 25 Douglas

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page26 of 41 Case4;10-cv-01564-CW Docurnentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page27 of 42

H o l t z - E a k i n , The P o t e n t i a l B u d g e t a r y I m p a c t o f R e c o g n i z i n g

Same-

2 3 4 5 6 7

Sex

M a r r i a g e , a t 1 , June 2 1 , 2004) . as a c o n c e i v a b l e

8

However, even

crediting

cost-savings

p o l i c y g o a l , groups s e l e c t e d t o bear

t h e b u r d e n o f l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t s t o save money must be rationally, not a r b i t r a r i l y , chosen. G o l i n k s i , 2012 WL 569685 a t

*22 n.8 ( c i t i n g

P l y l e r v . Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 227, 229 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) . 1015 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) , There, t h e N i n t h r e h ' g en

D i a z v . Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, i s also i n s t r u c t i v e .

8 banc d e n i e d , 9

Circuit

affirmed a d i s t r i c t court's preliminary injunction barring insurance state

10 e n f o r c e m e n t o f a s t a t e p r o v i s i o n e l i m i n a t i n g h e a l t h 11
benefits f o r r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s o f Arizona I n Arizona, couples

12 e m p l o y e e s . 13 14 15

were p e r m i t t e d t o r e g i s t e r as In

d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s , w h e t h e r t h e y were same-sex o r h e t e r o s e x u a l . r e j e c t i n g the state's r a t i o n a l e s o f cost-savings and r e d u c i n g

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e burdens, t h e c o u r t observed t h a t t h e savings

16 depended upon a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n same-sex and s i m i l a r l y 17 s i t u a t e d h e t e r o s e x u a l c o u p l e s , because t h e h e t e r o s e x u a l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
This r e p o r t i s a v a i l a b l e a t http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc55 5 9/0 6 - 2 1 - s a m e s e x m a r r i a g e . p d f .
8

couples

could preserve couples

t h e i r b e n e f i t s by m a r r y i n g ,

whereas same-sex c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law.

were b a r r e d f r o m m a r r i a g e

by Arizona

C i t i n g E i s e n s t a d t v . B a i r d , 405 U.S. 438 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t a p r o v i s i o n t o save f u n d s b a s e d on such a d i s t i n c t i o n could

n o t s u r v i v e r a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w b e c a u s e i t amounted t o t h e " s e l e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i o n t o a small group." 1014 . Id. at

26

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page27 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page28 of 42

I

The t h e DOMA.

desire

t o save money i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y § 3 o f

2 3 4

3.

Establishing

Uniformity

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e BLAG, § 3 o f t h e DOMA p r o m o t e s u n i f o r m i t y i n for federal benefits. However, t h e f e d e r a l government laws that Dunn

5 eligibility 6 has

accepted v a r i a t i o n s and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s

i n state marriage

7 by r e c o g n i z i n g

f o r f e d e r a l purposes any h e t e r o s e x u a l m a r r i a g e Gill, 699 F. Supp. a t 3 9 1 ( c i t i n g

8 i s . v a l i d under s t a t e law.

9 v. Comm'r o f I n t e r n a l Revenue, 70 T.C. 3 6 1 , 366 (1978) 10 11
( " r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t w h e t h e r an i n d i v i d u a l i s C a r r i e d ' is, for

p u r p o s e s o f t h e t a x l a w s , t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e l a w o f t h e S t a t e

12 o f t h e m a r i t a l d o m i c i l e " ) ; 5 C.F.R. § 843.102 ( d e f i n i n g " s p o u s e " 13 f o r 14
p u r p o s e s o f f e d e r a l employee b e n e f i t s b y r e f e r e n c e t o s t a t e 42 U.S.C. § 4 1 6 ( h ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i ) ( d e f i n i n g an " a p p l i c a n t " for

law);

15 p u r p o s e s o f S o c i a l S e c u r i t y

s u r v i v o r and death b e n e f i t s

as " t h e

16 w i f e , h u s b a n d , widow o r w i d o w e r " o f an i n s u r e d p e r s o n " i f t h e 17 18 19 20 21 22
courts an 20 o f the State" o f t h e deceased's d o m i c i l e "would f i n d such

applicant

and such i n s u r e d

i n d i v i d u a l were v a l i d l y

married"); married security]

C.F.R. § 404.345

( " I f you and t h e i n s u r e d

were v a l i d l y

under S t a t e l a w a t t h e time you a p p l y f o r . . . [ s o c i a l benefits, § 103(c) t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p requirement w i l l (veterans'

be m e t . " ) ; 38 U.S.C. (workers'

b e n e f i t s ) ; 20 C.F.R. § 10.415

23 c o m p e n s a t i o n ) ; 45 C.F.R. § 2 3 7 . 5 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) 24 25 26 27 28
C.F.R. §§ 825.122 a n d 825.800 C.F.R. §§ 219.30 a n d 222.11 Retirement A c t ) ) . (Family

( p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e ) ; 29

M e d i c a l Leave A c t ) ; 20

( b e n e f i t s under t h e R a i l r o a d recognition cannot

An e n a c t m e n t t h a t p r e c l u d e s f e d e r a l

o f c e r t a i n m a r r i a g e s because t h e y i n v o l v e be justified

same-sex c o u p l e s

as p r o m o t i n g u n i f o r m i t y where f e d e r a l l a w o t h e r w i s e 27

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page28 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page29 of 42

1
o

a c c e p t s w i d e v a r i a t i o n i n s t a t e m a r r i a g e law. DOMA, Congress a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e

I nconsidering the

long-standing disposition o f the marriage.

3 f e d e r a l government t o a c c e p t s t a t e d e f i n i t i o n s o f c i v i l 4
HR. Rep. 104-664 a t 2 ("The d e t e r m i n a t i o n

o f who may m a r r y i n t h e Instead,

5 United States i s uniquely a f u n c t i o n o f state law."). 6 7
§ 3 o f t h e DOMA u n d e r m i n e s u n i f o r m r e c o g n i t i o n r e q u i r i n g f e d e r a l agencies t o discern

o f marriage, by

which s t a t e law marriages and which a r e n o t .
9

8 are a c c e p t a b l e f o r f e d e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
The 4.

Encouraging Responsible P r o c r e a t i o n and P r e s e r v i n g t h e S o c i a l L i n k Between M a r r i a g e a n d C h i l d r e n

BLAG a s s e r t s t h a t Congress c o u l d r a t i o n a l l y have e n a c t e d couples

§ 3 o f t h e DOMA t o e n c o u r a g e m a r r i a g e f o r h e t e r o s e x u a l who, unlike same-sex c o u p l e s , a r e g e n e r a l l y conceiving children outside atrisk of

accidentally

o f marriage.

The BLAG

contends t h a t the p r o v i s i o n stability,

serves t o i n c e n t i v i z e t h e c r e a t i o n ,

and c l o s e n e s s o f h e t e r o s e x u a l m a r r i a g e , o r t h e r a i s i n g while d e c l i n i n g t o extend

of c h i l d r e n i n t h a t m a r i t a l context, similar incentives t o other

relationships. DOMA a n d t h e policy

Here, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between § 3 o f t h e goal o f steering child-bearing

into the context o f heterosexual rationale

m a r r i a g e i s t o o a t t e n u a t e d t o be c r e d i t e d as a p l a u s i b l e

28

The BLAG a r g u e s t h a t Congress has a p p r o v e d numerous p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e areas of t a x a t i o n , S o c i a l S e c u r i t y , i m m i g r a t i o n 23 and f e d e r a l b e n e f i t s t h a t d e f i n e m a r r i a g e f o r p u r p o s e s o f f e d e r a l law. However, t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s do n o t p u r p o r t t o e s t a b l i s h a 24 f e d e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f m a r r i a g e , b u t i n s t e a d impose a d d i t i o n a l 25 r e q u i r e m e n t s t o f u r t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t i v e g o a l s o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s , while a c c e p t i n g the s t a t e d e f i n i t i o n s o f marriage. G o l i n s k i , 2012 WL 569685 a t *25 n.10 ( c i t i n g 42 U.S.C. § 416 ( r e q u i r i n g m a r r i a g e 26 o f a t l e a s t one y e a r t o o b t a i n c e r t a i n S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s ) ; 27 U.S.C. § 1186a (b) (1) ( d i s c r e d i t i n g sham m a r r i a g e s f o r p u r p o s e s of immigration)).

22

9

28

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 FiIed05/24/12 Page29 of 41 Case4:lO-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page30 of 42

1
o
z*

f o r t h e law.

The l a w c a r r i e s no i n c e n t i v i z i n g e f f e c t f o r The BLAG a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t m a r r i a g e h a s

heterosexual couples.

3 l o n g been u n d e r s t o o d as a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a man a n d a woman. 4 5 6
S e c t i o n 3 o f t h e DOMA e n a c t e d an e x p r e s s e x c l u s i o n , federal recognition barring There

o f same-sex m a r r i a g e s u n d e r s t a t e l a w .

i s no r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s t o b e l i e v e

t h a t heterosexual couples are

7 more i n c l i n e d t o m a r r y a n d have c h i l d r e n o r t o e n t e r i n t o a 8 m a r r i a g e a f t e r a c c i d e n t a l l y c o n c e i v i n g a c h i l d , due t o t h i s 9 10 11 12
limiting f e d e r a l d e f i n i t i o n enacted i n 1996.
10

Golinski,

2012 WL couples

569685 *23 ("Denying f e d e r a l b e n e f i t s has sex

t o same-sex m a r r i e d practices

no r a t i o n a l e f f e c t on t h e p r o c r e a t i o n married (or unmarried) c o u p l e s . " ) .

o f opposite-

See a l s o (observing,

L a w r e n c e , 539 "what

13 U.S. a t 605 ( S c a l i a , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 justification could there possibly

be f o r d e n y i n g t h e b e n e f i t s o f

The BLAG's r e l i a n c e o n J o h n s o n v . R o b i s o n , 410 U.S. 3 6 1 (1974), i s n o t persuasive. T h e r e t h e Supreme C o u r t u p h e l d , a g a i n s t an e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e , a p r o v i s i o n t h a t g r a n t e d e d u c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s t o d r a f t e d i n d i v i d u a l s who p e r f o r m e d m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , b u t w i t h h e l d such b e n e f i t s f r o m d r a f t e d r e l i g i o u s , c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s who p e r f o r m e d m a n d a t o r y c i v i l i a n s e r v i c e as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e . I d . a t 382-83. The C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e e d u c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s made m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e more " p a l a t a b l e " a n d d e t e r r e d d r a f t e d s e r v i c e m e n f r o m s k i r t i n g t h e i r d u t i e s , whereas i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h d e e p l y h e l d r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s a g a i n s t m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e w o u l d n o t be drawn t o s e r v e through the a v a i l a b i l i t y o feducational benefits. Here, § 3 o f t h e DOMA i m p a c t s an e x p a n s i v e body o f l a w s t h a t t o u c h upon m a r i t a l status. These l a w s c o n c e r n d i v e r s e b e n e f i t s , p r i v i l e g e s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and o b l i g a t i o n s which, c o l l e c t i v e l y , a r e n o t r e a d i l y analogous t o t h e simple e d u c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t p r e s e n t i n Johnson. Thus, t h e i n c e n t i v i z i n g e f f e c t i n J o h n s o n does n o t a p p l y here. N o r a r e same-sex c o u p l e s l i k e t h e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s , because t h e y a r e s e e k i n g t o j o i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e o r have t h e i r e x i s t i n g m a r r i a g e s o r l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e y d e s i r e t o assume t h e a t t e n d i n g b e n e f i t s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Johnson i s i n a p p o s i t e .

1 0

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 FiIed05/24/12 Page30 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page31 of 42

1

m a r r i a g e t o h o m o s e x u a l couples- . . . [ s j u r e l y n o t t h e encouragement o f p r o c r e a t i o n , s i n c e t h e s t e r i l e and t h e e l d e r l y

2

3 are a l l o w e d t o marry") 4 5
rational

and P e r r y , 671 F.3d a t 1088 ("There i s no away t h e d e s i g n a t i o n o f

reason t o t h i n k t h a t t a k i n g

^ m a r r i a g e ' f r o m same-sex c o u p l e s w o u l d advance t h e g o a l o f

6 e n c o u r a g i n g C a l i f o r n i a ' s o p p o s i t e - s e x c o u p l e s t o p r o c r e a t e more 7 responsibly."). 8
The BLAG a l s o a r g u e s t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA c o u l d have been

9 passed t o p r e s e r v e t h e s o c i a l l i n k between m a r r i a g e and c h i l d 10 11 12 13
rearing. The BLAG c o n t e n d s t h a t Congress c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y o f m a r r i a g e c o u l d weaken o f marriage i s t o raise born

concluded t h a t expanding

thedefinition

s o c i e t y ' s view t h a t t h e c e n t r a l purpose children and c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e

t o t h e number o f c h i l d r e n i snotplausible

14 o u t s i d e o f m a r r i a g e .

This r a t i o n a l e

b e c a u s e , as

15 n o t e d e a r l i e r , c h i l d - r e a r i n g i s n o t t h e c o r e a t t r i b u t e o f 16 m a r r i a g e , a n d t h e r e i s no r e a s o n a b l e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e 17 e x c l u s i o n o f same-sex spouses f r o m t h e f e d e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f 18 m a r r i a g e a n d m i n i m i z i n g t h e number o f c h i l d r e n b o r n o u t s i d e o f 19 w e d l o c k . 20 21 22 23 24
The provision d i d n o t e x t e n d new m a r i t a l r i g h t s a n d Rather, i t blocked the

p r i v i l e g e s t o heterosexual couples. application o fexisting federal

r i g h t s t o m a r r i e d same-sex c o u p l e s Thus,

t o whom such p r i v i l e g e s c o u l d have o t h e r w i s e been a c c o r d e d . the law d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h an i n c e n t i v e

f o r heterosexual couples t o recognition,

25 m a r r y ; t h e y were a b l e t o do so a n d e n j o y f e d e r a l 26 p r i o r t o the. e n a c t m e n t 27 28
o f t h e DOMA.

T h e r e i s no r e a s o n a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n § 3 o f t h e DOMA and t h e p o l i c y g o a l o f e n c o u r a g i n g h e t e r o s e x u a l c o u p l e s t o 30

Case4:lO-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page32 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fiied05/24/12 PageSl of 41

1
1

procreate while married

o r enter i n t o marriage i f they Because t h e r e i s no r a t i o n a l

a c c i d e n t a l l y conceive a c h i l d .

3 r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h i s p o l i c y g o a l , t h e C o u r t need n o t r e s o l v e 4 whether f o s t e r i n g c h i l d - r e a r i n g by heterosexual, 5 6 7
sex couples, serves a l e g i t i m a t e governmental rather than same-

interest.

5. Summary I n sum, t h e l e g i s l a t i v e record contains evidence o f a n t i - g a y

8 animus a n d t h e BLAG has f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA 9
is r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o a l e g i t i m a t e government Plaintiff interest.

10 A c c o r d i n g l y , 11

same-sex spouses a r e e n t i t l e d t o summary

j u d g m e n t t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA i s i n v a l i d u n d e r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s

12 e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e s t o ' t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e l a w b l o c k s 13 t h e i r a c c e s s t o t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
31 B. Registered DOMA Domestic P a r t n e r s ' care plan.

Challenge t o § 3 o f t h e

Plaintiffs

a s s e r t t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n o f "spouse" r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s care p l a n , c o n t r a v e n i n g from their

i n § 3 o f t h e DOMA p r e c l u d e s enrollment

i n t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m

r i g h t s t o equal

p r o t e c t i o n under f e d e r a l l a w and t h e i r e n t i t l e m e n t and o b l i g a t i o n s o f m a r r i a g e contend t h a t , i f not f o r§ 3 o f who a r e r e g i s t e r e d l a w , w o u l d be

to a l l o ftherights, privileges, under C a l i f o r n i a law. t h e DOMA, P l a i n t i f f s Plaintiffs

Dominguez a n d H e r m o s i l l o ,

domestic p a r t n e r s , b u t n o t m a r r i e d under C a l i f o r n i a

deemed " s p o u s e s " u n d e r s t a t e l a w f o r p u r p o s e s o f H e r m o s i l l o ' s enrollment i n CalPERS' l o n g - t e r m care program. i n from

S t a t e D e f e n d a n t s do n o t s a y t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA, p a r t i c u l a r , precludes enrolling

C a l i f o r n i a r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s care p l a n . Rather, they

i n t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page32 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page33 of 42

1

represent t h a t they would

" a d m i t same-sex spouses a n d d o m e s t i c

2

p a r t n e r s t o [ t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n ] b u t f o r f e d e r a l S t a t e Defendants contend t h a t enrollment o f P l a i n t i f f status

3 law." 4

domestic p a r t n e r s i n t h e p l a n would j e o p a r d i z e t h e plan's

5 as a q u a l i f i e d s t a t e l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n u n d e r § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) (2) . 6 7
for Federal Defendants dispute P l a i n t i f f s ' contention that, b u t would

§ 3 o f t h e DOMA, C a l i f o r n i a r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s

8 n e c e s s a r i l y be t r e a t e d as spouses u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l t a x code. 9
Fed. D e f s . ' C r o s s Mot. Summ. J . 2, 2 0 - 2 1 a n d R e p l y 1 . The C o u r t registered domestic

10 n o t e s t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA does n o t e x p r e s s l y a d d r e s s 11

d o m e s t i c • p a r t n e r s and i t i s c l e a r t h a t § 7702B(f) o m i t s

12 p a r t n e r s . 13
Plaintiffs have n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA b l o c k s

14 CalPERS f r o m e n r o l l i n g , C a l i f o r n i a d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s i n i t s l o n g 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
term care plan. the Plaintiffs contend h y p o t h e t i c a l l y t h a t i f § 3 o f California

DOMA were i n v a l i d a t e d , b u t § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) were u p h e l d ,

r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s , who a r e l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o be t r e a t e d as spouses u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w , w o u l d be p e r m i t t e d t o e n r o l l i n t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n , w i t h o u t triggering

d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p l a n f o r f a v o r a b l e t a x t r e a t m e n t under § 7702B(f). I neffect, Plaintiffs ask' t h e C o u r t t o i s s u e an See C o a l , f o r a

a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n , w h i c h w o u l d be i m p r o p e r .

23 H e a l t h y C a l . v . F.C.C., 87 F.3d 383, 386 ( 9 t h C i r . 1996) ( c i t i n g 24 25
F l a s t v . Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n that

federal courts are not authorized t o issue advisory opinions). claim t h a t t h e equal

26 A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e C o u r t f i n d s moot P l a i n t i f f s '

27 p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s o f C a l i f o r n i a r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s have 28
been i n f r i n g e d b y § 3 o f t h e DOMA. 32

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page34 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page33 of 41

1
o
X.

C. In

A p p l i c a t i o n o f R a t i o n a l Basis Test t o Registered Domestic P a r t n e r s ' Challenge t o § 7702B(f) a d d i t i o n t o c h a l l e n g i n g § 3 o f t h e DOMA, P l a i n t i f f s claim

3 t h a t § 7702B(f) i n f r i n g e s t h e equal p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s o f 4
C a l i f o r n i a same-sex r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s b y e x c l u d i n g care does them

5 from enrollment i n q u a l i f i e d state-maintained long-term 6 plans.
As e x p l a i n e d above, s u b p a r a g r a p h

(C) o f § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) ( 2 )

7 not i n c l u d e r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s i n t h e l i s t o f r e l a t i v e s 8 e l i g i b l e t o e n r o l l i n s t a t e - m a i n t a i n e d long-term care plans. 9
list o f e l i g i b l e participants incorporates a l l relatives The

10 q u a l i f y i n g f o r a dependency e x e m p t i o n u n d e r 26 U.S.C. § 1 5 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) 11
except f o r those i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e e l i g i b l e b e c a u s e t h e y a r e Had C o n g r e s s i nthe l i s t of

12 members o f t h e same h o u s e h o l d as t h e t a x p a y e r . 13 14
i n c o r p o r a t e d subparagraph (H) o f § 1 5 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) ,

i n d i v i d u a l s e l i g i b l e u n d e r § 7702B(f.), CalPERS w o u l d have been

15 a u t h o r i z e d t o e n r o l l t h e r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s o f 16 C a l i f o r n i a p u b l i c e m p l o y e e s i n i t s l o n g - t e r m 17 18
Federal § 7702B(f), D e f e n d a n t s oppose P l a i n t i f f s ' arguing, first, care plan.

challenge t o

t h a t r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s do o r suspect c l a s s . For t h e reasons

19 n o t c o n s t i t u t e a q u a s i - s u s p e c t 20 21
discussed gay above i n c o n n e c t i o n

w i t h t h e non-suspect class s t a t u s o f domestic below,

men a n d l e s b i a n s , t h e C o u r t c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t Although,

22 p a r t n e r s c o n s t i t u t e such a c l a s s . 23

as e x p l a i n e d

l a w s e x c l u d i n g r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s u s e t h a t s t a t u s as a f o r homosexuality, g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s s t i l l do n o t

24 p r o x y 25 26 27 28

c o n s t i t u t e a suspect o r quasi-suspect Circuit precedent.

c l a s s under c u r r e n t N i n t h

Federal

Defendants contend t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n o f r e g i s t e r e d f r o m § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) does n o t amount t o a 33

domestic p a r t n e r s

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page34 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page35 of 42

1

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n b a s e d on s e x u a l

o r i e n t a t i o n because many s t a t e s The

2 permit heterosexual 3 4

c o u p l e s t o r e g i s t e r as d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s .

Court p r e v i o u s l y r e j e c t e d t h i s

a r g u m e n t , r e a s o n i n g t h a t same-sex

c o u p l e s a r e r e l e g a t e d t o d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s h i p because t h e y a r e from c i v i l marriage by C a l i f o r n i a lax^. Laws l i m i t i n g
11

5 barred 6 7

J a n u a r y 26, 2012

O r d e r a t 16.

same-sex c o u p l e s t o r e g i s t e r e d them f r o m m a r r i a g e , turn

domestic p a r t n e r s h i p s ,

while precluding

8 on s e x u a l

o r i e n t a t i o n , and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y

o f r e g i s t e r e d domestic

9 p a r t n e r s h i p t o d i f f e r e n t - s e x c o u p l e s does n o t n e g a t e t h e b u r d e n s 10 11
f a c e d b y same-sex r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c The Court's p r i o r r u l i n g relied partners. on t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t ' s Circuit

12 d e c i s i o n i n D i a z . 13

T h e r e , as n o t e d above, t h e N i n t h

considered a challenge

t o a s t a t e law p r o v i s i o n t h a t e l i m i n a t e d

14 h e a l t h c a r e i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s f o r t h e r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c 15 p a r t n e r s o f A r i z o n a p u b l i c e m p l o y e e s . 16 h e t e r o s e x u a l 17
Arizona law allows

c o u p l e s , as w e l l as same-sex c o u p l e s , t o r e g i s t e r as Although heterosexual r e g i s t e r e d domestic the court found

domestic p a r t n e r s .

18 p a r t n e r s were a l s o a f f e c t e d b y t h e r e s t r i c t i o n , 19

t h a t t h e l a w was t a i n t e d b y a b a r e d e s i r e t o harm same-sex c o u p l e s couples, they c o u l d n o t marry under

20 b e c a u s e , u n l i k e h e t e r o s e x u a l 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A r i z o n a law.

656 F.3d a t 1014-1015.

F e d e r a l Defendants argue t h a t Diaz i s i n a p p o s i t e because t h e case c o n c e r n e d t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f an e x i s t i n g b e n e f i t t h a t an

Only f i v e t o s i x p e r c e n t o f r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s i n C a l i f o r n i a are d i f f e r e n t - s e x partners. A t l e a s t one p a r t n e r must be s i x t y - t w o y e a r s o l d o r o l d e r t o r e g i s t e r , l i m i t i n g t h e e l i g i b l e pool. D e c l a r a t i o n o f C l a u d i a C e n t e r , Ex. M, Gary J . G a t e s , M.V. Lee B a d g e t t , Deborah Ho, M a r r i a g e , R e g i s t r a t i o n a n d D i s s o l u t i o n b y Same-Sex C o u p l e s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a t 14 ( J u l y 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) . • 34

1 1

Case4:lO-cv-01564-CW Dociirnentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page36 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page35 of 41

1

unpopular group had p r e v i o u s l y the

enjoyed.

T h i s , h o w e v e r , was n o t The c o u r t explained

2

crux o f t h e Ninth C i r c u i t ' s reasoning.

3 t h a t "when a s t a t e c h o o s e s t o p r o v i d e s u c h b e n e f i t s , 4
so i n an a r b i t r a r y o r d i s c r i m i n a t o r y

i t may n o t do affects

manner t h a t a d v e r s e l y

5 p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p s t h a t may be u n p o p u l a r . "

I d . a t 1013 ( c i t i n g (1973)).

6 U.S. D e p ' t . o f A g r i c . v . Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534-35 7

F e d e r a l D e f e n d a n t s a l s o a r g u e t h a t § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) i s n e u t r a l as

8 t o s e x u a l o r i e n t a t i o n b e c a u s e o t h e r r e l a t i v e s , s u c h as c o u s i n s , 9 and
i n d i v i d u a l s who s h a r e a c l o s e , list of eligible f a m i l y - l i k e r e l a t i o n s h i p are relatives. However, t h e

10 o m i t t e d f r o m t h e 11
relevant

comparison i s between § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) ' s t r e a t m e n t o f domestic

12 p a r t n e r s a n d i t s t r e a t m e n t o f spouses b e c a u s e d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s 13 a r e more c o m p a r a b l e t o spouses t h a n t o d i s t a n t r e l a t i v e s , such as 14 c o u s i n s .
Congress v i e w e d r e g i s t e r e d status, domestic p a r t n e r s h i p as a referred

15 q u a s i - m a r i t a l

s u c h as when R e p r e s e n t a t i v e I s t o o k

16 t o d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s h i p

as t h e " e q u i v a l e n t t o g a y m a r r i a g e , " 1993

17 WL 236117, a t *H4355, a n d R e p r e s e n t a t i v e S t e a r n s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e 18 D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s h i p
r e g i s t r y was i n t e n d e d t o associated cousins

19 g i v e same-sex c o u p l e s t h e l e g a l a n d s o c i a l b e n e f i t s 20 w i t h m a r r i a g e , 1995 WL 639923, a t *H11659. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
are also affected

The f a c t t h a t

does n o t u n d e r c u t t h e C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g

that

§ 7702B(f)'s exclusion o f registered

domestic p a r t n e r s i s a See Feeney, 442 U.S.

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n b a s e d on s e x u a l o r i e n t a t i o n .

a t 275 ( " I f t h e i m p a c t o f t h i s s t a t u t e c o u l d n o t be p l a u s i b l y e x p l a i n e d on a n e u t r a l ground, impact i t s e l f would s i g n a l that the

r e a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n made b y t h e l a w was i n f a c t n o t n e u t r a l . " ) . Therefore, i n applying r a t i o n a l basis review t o P l a i n t i f f s ' equal p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e t o § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) , as w i t h 35 § 3 o f t h e DOMA,

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page36 of 41 Case4: lQ-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page37 of 42

I

the Court considers o f any o t h e r

e v i d e n c e o f a n t i - g a y animus a n d t h e e x i s t e n c e f o r § 77026(f)'s exclusion of Neither party points t o l e g i s l a t i v e

r a t i o n a l basis

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s .

h i s t o r y i l l u m i n a t i n g t h e r e a s o n s t h a t Congress l i m i t e d t h e eligible r e l a t i v e s contained i n subparagraph (C). Thus, t h e r e i s

no d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f e i t h e r animus o r a b e n i g n p u r p o s e i n t h e record p e r t a i n i n g t o § 7702B(f). Congress's views r e g a r d i n g However, i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t

legal recognition of registered a t t h e same t i m e as i t c o n s i d e r e d determination.

domestic p a r t n e r s h i p s , recorded and approved § 7702B(f),

i s r e l e v a n t to' the Court's

I n A r l i n g t o n H e i g h t s v . M e t r o p o l i t a n H o u s i n g Development Corporation, explained, 429 U.S. 252, 267 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t

"The h i s t o r i c a l ' b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e d e c i s i o n i s one a series of . . . The s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n may a l s o Thus, f a c t s

e v i d e n t i a r y source, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t reveals official actions taken f o r i n v i d i o u s purposes

sequence o f e v e n t s l e a d i n g up t o t h e c h a l l e n g e d shed some l i g h t

on t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r ' s p u r p o s e s . "

18 b e y o n d t h e l e g i s l a t i v e r e c o r d d i r e c t l y p e r t a i n i n g t o § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
are r e l e v a n t t o d i s c e r n Congress's i n t e n t . The l e g i s l a t i v e contemporaneously

h i s t o r y o f p r o v i s i o n s t h a t Congress c o n s i d e r e d w i t h t h e passage o f § 7702B(f) i s r e l e v a n t .

P l a i n t i f f s p o i n t t o Congress's contemporaneous o f § 3 o f t h e DOMA a n d i t s o b v i o u s a n i m o s i t y

consideration

t o w a r d s same-sex

c o u p l e s i n t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s , as w e l l as i t s ban on f u n d i n g o f t h e District o f Columbia's domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r y , as i n d i r e c t

evidence t h a t t h i s

animus was t h e r e a s o n f o r i t s e x c l u s i o n o f a from t h e l i s t The

p r o v i s i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o r e g i s t e r e d domestic partners of e l i g i b l e r e l a t i v e s under subparagraph 36

(C) o f § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) .

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page38 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page37 of 41

1

DOMA a n d § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) were e n a c t e d i n t h e same l e g i s l a t i v e a month o f each o t h e r .

session,

2 within 3 4

C o n g r e s s h a d been b a n n i n g t h e

f u n d i n g o f t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia's domestic p a r t n e r s h i p registry f o r years. I n 1996, C o n g r e s s n o t o n l y knew t h a t a number

5 o f l o c a l i t i e s and e n t i t i e s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y had r e c o g n i z e d and 6 p r o t e c t e d same-sex c o u p l e s b y o f f e r i n g
r e g i s t e r e d domestic

7 partnerships, i t l i m i t e d the f e d e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f marriage t o 8 heterosexual
married couples. Thwarting federal recognition of

9 r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s h i p s was a c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a p p r o v i n g 10 § 3 o f t h e DOMA's l i m i t i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f m a r r i a g e . 11
reflecting animus t o w a r d s g a y men a n d l e s b i a n s The s t a t e m e n t s contexts

i n these with

12 a r e r e l e v a n t t o show a n t i - g a y animus i n c o n n e c t i o n 13 14 15
§ 7702B(f)'s infers

e x c l u s i o n o f r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s . on a n t i - g a y

The C o u r t

t h a t Congress a c t e d

animus i n r e f u s i n g t o of relatives care plans.

i n c l u d e r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s

i nthe l i s t long term

16 e l i g i b l e t o e n r o l l i n s t a t e - m a i n t a i n e d 17 18

I n a d d i t i o n t o p o i n t i n g o u t e v i d e n c e o f a n t i - g a y animus i n the l e g i s l a t i v e record, P l a i n t i f f s have r e f u t e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f exclusion of registered

19 any r a t i o n a l 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

basis

f o r § 7702B(f)'s

domestic p a r t n e r s . Federal Defendants argue t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n o f r e g i s t e r e d f r o m § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) was r a t i o n a l such r e l a t i o n s h i p s . b e c a u s e , i n 1996, earlier,

domestic partners

no s t a t e r e c o g n i z e d

As n o t e d

C o n g r e s s was a c t u a l l y aware o f , a n d t h w a r t e d , Columbia's domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r y . of domestic p a r t n e r s h i p r e g i s t r i e s jurisdictions. Accordingly,

theDistrict of informed other

C o n g r e s s was

established i nvarious Defendants' asserted

Federal

37

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page39 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page38 of 41

r a t i o n a l e t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n was r e a s o n a b l e domestic

because

registered

p a r t n e r s h i p was a n o v e l l e g a l s t a t u s c a n n o t be c r e d i t e d . Federal Defendants contend registered domestic t h a t i t was n o t i r r a t i o n a l long

3 4 5 6 7

Next, to exclude

p a r t n e r s from q u a l i f i e d s t a t e no s t a t e treated registered Federal

t e r m c a r e p l a n s b e c a u s e , i n 1996, domestic

p a r t n e r s as spouses f o r s t a t e

law purposes.

Defendants p o i n t

o u t t h a t C a l i f o r n i a extended range o f spousal under s t a t e

t o registered

8 domestic p a r t n e r s t h e f u l l 9 responsibilities available 10 11
l e g i s l a t i v e enactment.

r i g h t s and

l a w o n l y a f t e r a 2003

T h i s a r g u m e n t , however, i s n o t p e r s u a s i v e domestic p a r t n e r s as e l i g i b l e f o r

because t r e a t i n g r e g i s t e r e d

12 e n r o l l m e n t i n a s t a t e - m a i n t a i n e d , l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n does n o t 13 14 15
e n t a i l extending t o registered domestic p a r t n e r s a l l r i g h t s and

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s attached t o marriage

under a g i v e n s t a t e ' s l a w . reasonably

F e d e r a l D e f e n d a n t s a l s o a r g u e t h a t Congress

16 d e c i d e d t h a t t h e c a t e g o r y o f h o u s e h o l d 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

members d e s c r i b e d i n eligibility

§ 1 5 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( H ) was not' a s u i t a b l e b a s i s t o d e t e r m i n e for inclusion i n a state

l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n because such This justification, o f spouses,

relationships

may change f r o m y e a r t o y e a r . be c r e d i t e d

however, cannot step-relatives

because t h e e l i g i b i l i t y

and r e l a t i v e s - i n - l a w , w h i c h

depends on t h e change b e t w e e n

e x i s t e n c e o f a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , may l i k e w i s e one y e a r and t h e n e x t . Federal Defendants f u r t h e r contend registered domestic

that the exclusion o f officials

partners simplifies f o r state

a d m i n i s t e r i n g long-term care plans t h e t a s k o f v e r i f y i n g eligibility. relationships . This r a t i o n a l e i snotplausible because t h e f o r long-term

o f d i s t a n t r e l a t i v e s who a r e e l i g i b l e 38

Case4: lQ-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page40 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page39 of 41

1

care coverage t h r o u g h s t a t e - m a i n t a i n e d plans a r e l i k e l y as d i f f i c u l t the the

at least

2 3 4

t o v e r i f y as t h e r e s i d e n c e o f i n d i v i d u a l s who l i v e i n as t h e t a x p a y e r f o r t h e t a x a b l e y e a r . Thus,

same h o u s e h o l d

e x c l u s i o n o f subparagraph

(H) does n o t r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e t o o f state-maintained long-term care

5 e f f o r t s t o ease a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 6 plans.

I n Moreno, 413 U.S. a t 537-38, t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t a that limited e l i g i b i l i t y f o r f o o d stamps t o h o u s e h o l d s

7 provision

8 c o m p r i s i n g " r e l a t e d " r a t h e r t h a n " n o n - r e l a t e d " i n d i v i d u a l s was n o t 9 10
r a t i o n a l l y connected addition, t o e f f o r t s t o c u r b abuse o f t h e p r o g r a m . rejected for In

t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t i n Diaz r e c e n t l y

t h e argument domestic burdens

11 t h a t a s t a t e l a w e l i m i n a t i n g h e a l t h

care b e n e f i t s

12 p a r t n e r s s e r v e d t h e i n t e r e s t o f e a s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

13 w h e r e t h e c h a l l e n g e d l a w amounted t o a " s e l e c t i v e " b u r d e n on a 14 15 16
small group o f i n d i v i d u a l s . Finally, 656 F.3d a t 1014. reasonably

F e d e r a l Defendants a s s e r t t h a t Congress

c o u l d have assumed t h a t t h e r e w o u l d

n o t be any s i g n i f i c a n t

17 d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n q u a l i f i e d s t a t e l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n s a n d p r i v a t e 18 § 7702B p l a n s , so t h a t d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s o f s t a t e employees 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
n o t be d i s c o u r a g e d from p u r c h a s i n g l o n g - t e r m care coverage f o r state-maintained long-term would simply care

because t h e y a r e i n e l i g i b l e coverage. household

T h i s does n o t amount t o a r a t i o n a l e members u n d e r s u b p a r a g r a p h

f o r excluding

(H) f r o m t h e l i s t o f The a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r p u r c h a s e on t h e

relatives eligible

f o r state-maintained plans. with taxbenefits,

of l o n g - t e r m care coverage,

p r i v a t e m a r k e t does n o t e x p l a i n from s t a t e plans.

t h i s f e d e r a l l y mandated e x c l u s i o n

S e c t i o n 7702B(f) expressed

i s actually inconsistent

with

Congress's

p o l i c y goal o f encouraging 39

t h e purchase o f long-term

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Fiied05/24/12 Page40 of 41 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page41 of 42

I

care coverage tax

generally.

Congress's b r o a d e x t e n s i o n o f f a v o r a b l e

2 3

t r e a t m e n t t o p r i v a t e p l a n s was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s p o l i c y However, Congress i m p o s e d , p u r s u a n t t o § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) , a

goal.

4 p e n a l t y , namely d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f s t a t e - m a i n t a i n e d p l a n s from 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
f a v o r a b l e f e d e r a l t a x t r e a t m e n t , i f they extended coverage t o household long-term care

members a n d r e l a t i v e s b e y o n d t h e l i s t o f

i n d i v i d u a l s s a n c t i o n e d b y Congress. Thus, none o f t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s p u t f o r t h by F e d e r a l Defendants s a t i s f i e s the r a t i o n a l basis test.

Because C o n g r e s s ' s r e s t r i c t i o n on s t a t e - m a i n t a i n e d l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n s l a c k s any r a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a l e g i t i m a t e

12 g o v e r n m e n t i n t e r e s t , b u t r a t h e r a p p e a r s t o be m o t i v a t e d b y a n t i 13
gay a n i m u s , t h e e x c l u s i o n o f r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c partners of

14 p u b l i c employees f r o m § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) ' s l i s t o f i n d i v i d u a l s e l i g i b l e t o 15
e n r o l l i n s t a t e - m a i n t a i n e d long-term care plans v i o l a t e s t h e guarantee.

16 C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n 17 V. S u b s t a n t i v e Due P r o c e s s 18
The C o u r t need n o t a d d r e s s

Plaintiffs'

s u b s t a n t i v e due Plaintiffs

19 p r o c e s s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e d i s p u t e d p r o v i s i o n s because 20 21
p r e v a i l on t h e i r m o t i o n

f o r summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r Plaintiffs' meritorious equal

equal p r o t e c t i o n challenge.

22 p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e r e d r e s s e s t h e i r i n j u r i e s b y i n v a l i d a t i n g 23 24 25 26 27 28
The f e d e r a l l a w t h w a r t i n g t h e i r e n r o l l m e n t i n t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m care p l a n and, t h u s , t h e i r s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s CONCLUSION C o u r t f i n d s t h a t § 3 o f t h e DOMA v i o l a t e s t h e e q u a l same-sex s p o u s e s , a n d v i o l a t e s t h e equal 40 protection a t t a c k i s moot.

protection rights of Plaintiff subparagraph (C) o f § 7 7 0 2 B ( f )

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Documentl24 Filed06/26/12 Page42 of 42 Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-1 Filed05/24/12 Page41 of 41

1 r i g h t s o f P l a i n t i f f r e g i s t e r e d domestic p a r t n e r s .

Therefore,

both

2 provisions are c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n v a l i d t o theextent that 3 exclude 4
Plaintiff same-sex spouses a n d r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c care plan.

they

p a r t n e r s f r o m e n r o l l m e n t i n t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m

5 Thus, P l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n 6 7

f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s g r a n t e d w i t h

r e s p e c t t o t h e i r e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m s a n d t h e BLAG's a n d Federal Defendants' cross-motions f o r summary j u d g m e n t t h a t § 3 o f

8 t h e DOMA a n d § 7702B(f). o f T i t l e 26 a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a r e d e n i e d . 9 10 11
and A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Court permanently e n j o i n s State those Defendants, from long-

a c t i n g a t t h e i r d i r e c t i o n o r on t h e i r b e h a l f ,

denying

Plaintiff

c l a s s members e n r o l l m e n t i n t h e CalPERS

12 t e r m c a r e p l a n on t h e b a s i s o f § 3 o f t h e DOMA o r § 7 7 0 2 B { f ) ' s 13 e x c l u s i o n o f same-sex spouses a n d r e g i s t e r e d d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r s , 14
respectively. Federal Defendants a r e e n j o i n e d from disqualifying

15 t h e CalPERS l o n g - t e r m c a r e p l a n u n d e r § 7 7 0 2 B ( f ) b a s e d on S t a t e 16
Defendants' compliance w i t h t h e terms o f t h i s injunction. A stay-

17 on S t a t e D e f e n d a n t s ' c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s o r d e r w i l l be g r a n t e d , 18 19 20 21 22
to if a t i m e l y appeal i s f i l e d . The C l e r k i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e Plaintiff In c l a s s and a g a i n s t Defendants and I n t e r v e n o r s . f o rRelief, Plaintiffs indicated their a motion intent

t h e i r Prayer

seek a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s a n d c o s t s .

They may s u b m i t

23 m a k i n g s u c h a r e q u e s t . 24 25 26 27 28
41
D a t e d : 5/24/2012

IT

I S SO ORDERED.

United States D i s t r i c t

Judge

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-2 Filed06/26/12 Page1 of 3

Exhibit B

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-2 Filed06/26/12 Page2 of 3

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document132-2 Filed06/26/12 Page3 of 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful