Obergefell v. Hodges

Brief Filed: 5/1/2014
Court: 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
Year of Decision: 2014

Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 506KB)

At issue is a federal challenge to the laws against same-sex marriage in Ohio.

Sexual Orientation (discrimination; same sex-marriage)

James Obergefell and John Arthur, a same-sex couple alleging that the state discriminates against same-sex couples who have married lawfully out-of-state. Arthur, who was terminally ill and suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), sought to identify Obergefell as his surviving spouse on his death certificate based on their July 11, 2013, Maryland marriage. The couple was granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting state officials from listing Arthur as unmarried on his death certificate, in the event he died before the court could consider the case. Arthur died on Oct. 22, 2013.

On Dec. 23, 2013, U.S. District Judge Timothy Black ordered Ohio authorities to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates, saying the state's ban on such unions is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters “don't like homosexuality.” The narrow ruling applied only to death certificates. But the State of Ohio appealed that ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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 out-of-state?