(Consolidated with Fujii v. Comm’r of Indiana IRS, Lee v. Abbott, and Wolf v. Walker.)
Brief Filed: 8/14
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Year of Decision: 2014
Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 116KB)
Involves a challenge to the laws against same-sex marriage in Indiana (Baskin, Fujii and Lee) and Wisconsin (Wolf).
Sexual Orientation (discrimination; same sex-marriage)
On March 12, 2014, a federal lawsuit was filed on behalf on three same-sex couples, all women. Their complaint named as defendants Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and three county clerks, with one of the county clerks, Penny Bogan, in her official capacity, as the first-named defendant.
On June 25, 2014, the U.S. District Court ruled as to the case of the remaining plaintiffs in Baskin, as well as the cases of Fujii and Lee. District Judge Richard L. Young found in favor of the plaintiff couples, granting them summary judgment and striking down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage. The judge found that Indiana's ban violated the Fourteenth Amendment under both due process and equal protection theories and that the state had no rational basis for instituting its ban. The district court did not issue a stay, and as a result, Indiana clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the day of the ruling. The state filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit.
On Feb. 3, 2014, four same-sex couples filed a federal lawsuit in Wisconsin. The lawsuit seeks to overturn a constitutional amendment passed in Wisconsin in 2006 limiting marriage to different-sex couples, as well as strike down a "marriage evasion law" that penalizes Wisconsin couples from marrying out of state.
On June 6, 2014, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb overturned Wisconsin's discriminatory state ban on marriage for same-sex couples. Crabb did not stay her ruling, but also did not immediately issue an order blocking the enforcement of the order, leaving it unclear whether same-sex couples could immediately marry. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen appealed the decision in to the Seventh Circuit July 2014.
APA's amicus briefs present an accurate and comprehensive summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge concerning sexual orientation, same-sex relationships, and the children of same-sex couples. Drawing on the cumulative scientific knowledge in these areas, APA makes four main arguments 1) that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is generally not chosen, and is highly resistant to change; 2) that same-sex relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects; and, that excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage denies them social, psychological and health benefits; 3) that there is no scientific basis for concluding that same-sex couples are not fit parents or that children of same-sex couples are any less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of heterosexual couples; and 4) that denying same-sex couples access to marriage is an instance of stigma.
On Sept. 4, 2014, just days after oral argument, the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of marriage equality.
Judge Posner relied on the APA's brief and the sources cited therein as follows:
[T]here is little doubt that sexual orientation, the ground of the discrimination, is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice. Wisely, neither Indiana nor Wisconsin ar-gues otherwise. The American Psychological Association has said that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” APA, “Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality” 2 (2008), www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf (visited Sept. 2, 2014, as were the other websites cited in this opinion); see also Gregory M. Herek et al., “Demographic, Psychological, and Social Characteristics of Self-Identified Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in a US Probability Sample,” 7 Sexuality Research and Social Policy 176, 188 (2010) (“combining respondents who said they'd had a small amount of choice with those reporting no choice, 95% of gay men and 84% of lesbians could be characterized as perceiving that they had little or no choice about their sexual orientation”). That homosexual orientation is not a choice is further suggested by the absence of evidence (despite extensive efforts to find it) that psychotherapy is effective in altering sexual orientation in general and homosexual orientation in particular. APA, “Answers to Your Questions,” supra, at 3; Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation 35–4.