DeBoer v. Snyder; Tanco v. Haslem; Bourke v. Beshear

Brief Filed: 6/16/2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Year of Decision: 2014

Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 497KB)

The consolidated cases involve a federal challenge to the laws against same-sex marriage in Michigan (DeBoer), Tennessee (Tanco) and Kentucky (Bourke).

Sexual Orientation (discrimination; same sex-marriage)

DeBoer

The plaintiffs, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, seeking to jointly adopt their children, originally challenged the state's ban on adoption by same-sex couples. In August 2012, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman invited the couple to amend their suit to challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage, “the underlying issue.” Following further oral argument and a trial, Friedman ruled on March 21, 2014, that Michigan's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional and violates the plaintiffs' right to the equal protection of the law. The state appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has stayed Friedman's ruling pending appeal.

Tanco

Three same-sex couples validly married outside the state are challenging Tennessee laws that prohibit the state from recognizing their marriages and that exclude them from the benefits of marriage available to married opposite-sex couples. On March 14, 2014, District Court Judge Aleta A. Trauger ruled that the Tennessee must recognize the plaintiffs' marriages, holding that the state's discriminatory marriage laws violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state has appealed Trauger's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has stayed that ruling pending appeal.  

Bourke

Four same-sex couples validly married outside the state have challenged Kentucky laws that prohibit the state from recognizing their marriages and that exclude them from the benefits of marriage available to married opposite-sex couples. On Feb. 12, 2014, District Court Judge John G. Heyburn ruled that Kentucky's marriage laws violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his opinion, Heyburn declared that the state's “laws treat gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them,” and that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Because Kentucky's attorney general has declined to defend the marriage laws on appeal, the state's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is being pursued by Governor Steve Beshear. The Sixth Circuit has stayed Heyburn's ruling pending appeal.

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 Nov. 6, 2014, the court issued an opinion upholding the challenged laws in a 2-1 decision. In doing so, it created a circuit split and became the first federal court of appeals to rule against marriage equality in a post-Windsor case.

The Sixth Circuit's majority opinion did not address the APA's arguments. Judge Daughtrey's dissent, however, focused on the negative effects of marriage bans on same-sex couples and their children. See, e.g., Docket No. 130-2 at 45 (responding to “responsible procreation” arguments and stating “[h]ow ironic that irresponsible, unmarried, opposite-sex couples in the Sixth Circuit who produce unwanted offspring must be ‘channeled' into marriage and thus rewarded with its many psychological and financial benefits, while same-sex couples who become model parents are punished for their responsible behavior by being denied the right to marry”). Like the Ohio district court below, Judge Daughtry found that the studies of Mark Regnerus, Douglas Allen, and Loren Marks were “not credible” in contrast to other more reputable studies on the effects of LGBT parenting. Id. at 59-60. APA's amicus briefs filed in the Sixth Circuit urged this conclusion.

Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On Jan. 16, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in all four cases on the following questions:

• Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
• Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed our-of-state?

On June 26, 2015 - in a 5-4 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the 14th amendment requires marriage equality and that all states must allow same-sex couples to marry as well as recognize same-sex marriages entered into out-of-state.