Wolf v. Walker (District Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -





SCOTT WALKER, in his official capacity as
Governor of Wisconsin,
J.B. VAN HOLLEN, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of Wisconsin,
OSKAR ANDERSON, in his official capacity as
State Registrar of Wisconsin,
JOSEPH CZARNEZKI, in his official capacity as
Milwaukee County Clerk,
WENDY CHRISTENSEN, in her official capacity as
Racine County Clerk and
SCOTT MCDONELL, in his official capacity as
Dane County Clerk,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plaintiffs Virginia Wolf, Carol Schumacher, Kami Young, Karina Willes, Roy Badger,
Garth Wangemann, Charvonne Kemp, Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf, Katharina Heyning,
Salud Garcia, Pamela Kleiss, William Hurtubise, Leslie Palmer, Johannes Wallmann and
Keith Borden are eight same-sex couples residing in the state of Wisconsin who either want
to get married in this state or want the state to recognize a marriage they entered into
lawfully outside Wisconsin. Standing in their way is Article XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin
Constitution, which states that “[o]nly a marriage between one man and one woman shall
be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially
similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this
state.” In addition, various provisions in the Wisconsin Statutes, primarily in chapter 765,
limit marriage to a “husband” and a “wife.” The parties agree that both the marriage
amendment and the statutory provisions prohibit plaintiffs from marrying in Wisconsin or
obtaining legal recognition in Wisconsin for a marriage they entered in another state or
country. The question raised by plaintiffs’ complaint is whether the marriage amendment
and the relevant statutes violate what plaintiffs contend is their fundamental right to marry
and their right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.

Two motions are before the court: (1) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted filed by defendants Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen and
Oskar Anderson, dkt. #66; and (2) a motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs. Dkt.
#70. (Defendants Joseph Czarnezki, Scott McDonell and Wendy Christensen, the clerks
for Milwaukee County, Dane County and Racine County, have not taken a position on
either motion, so I will refer to defendants Walker, Van Hollen and Anderson simply as
“defendants” for the remainder of the opinion.) In addition, Julaine K. Appling, Jo Egelhoff,
Jaren E. Hiller, Richard Kessenich and Edmund L. Webster (all directors or officers of
Wisconsin Family Action) have filed an amicus brief on behalf of defendants. Dkt. #109.
Having reviewed the parties’ and amici’s filings, I am granting plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment and denying defendants’ motion to dismiss because I conclude that the
Wisconsin laws prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples interfere with plaintiffs’ right
to marry, in violation of the due process clause, and discriminate against plaintiffs on the
basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the equal protection clause.

In reaching this decision, I do not mean to disparage the legislators and citizens who
voted in good conscience for the marriage amendment. To decide this case in favor of
plaintiffs, it is not necessary, as some have suggested, to “cast all those who cling to
traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools,”
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2717-18 (2013) (Alito, J., dissenting), or
“adjudg[e] those who oppose [same-sex marriage] . . . enemies of the human race.” Id. at
2709 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the state may not
intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions made by individuals
and that, when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so
in an even-handed manner.

This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or
inconsistent with the teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or
immoral or whether they are something that should be encouraged or discouraged. It is not
even about whether the plaintiffs in this case are as capable as opposite-sex couples of
maintaining a committed and loving relationship or raising a family together. Quite simply,
this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the
United States Constitution.

Although the parties in this case disagree about many issues, they do agree about at
least one thing, which is the central role that marriage plays in American society. It is a
defining rite of passage and one of the most important events in the lives of millions of
people, if not the most important for some. Of course, countless government benefits are
tied to marriage, as are many responsibilities, but these practical concerns are only one part
of the reason that marriage is exalted as a privileged civic status. Marriage is tied to our
sense of self, personal autonomy and public dignity. And perhaps more than any other
endeavor, we view marriage as essential to the pursuit of happiness, one of the inalienable
rights in our Declaration of Independence. Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, Case for
Marriage 2 (Broadway Books 2000) (stating that 93% of Americans rate “having a happy
marriage” as one of their most important goals, an ever higher percentage than “being in
good health”). For these reasons and many others, “marriage is not merely an accumulation
of benefits. It is a fundamental mark of citizenship.” Andrew Sullivan, “State of the
Union,” New Republic (May 8, 2000). Thus, by refusing to extend marriage to the plaintiffs
in this case, defendants are not only withholding benefits such as tax credits and marital
property rights, but also denying equal citizenship to plaintiffs.

It is in part because of this strong connection between marriage and equal citizenship
that the marriage amendment must be scrutinized carefully to determine whether it is
consistent with guarantees of the Constitution. Defendants and amici defend the marriage
ban on various grounds, such as preserving tradition and wanting to proceed with caution,
but if the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as
marriage, then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not
ready yet.” At the very least it must make a showing that the deprivation furthers a
legitimate interest separate from a wish to maintain the status quo. Defendants attempt to
do this by arguing that allowing same-sex couples to marry may harm children or the
institution of marriage itself. Those concerns may be genuine, but they are not substantiated
by defendants or by amici.

Under these circumstances, personal beliefs, anxiety about change and discomfort
about an unfamiliar way of life must give way to a respect for the constitutional rights of
individuals, just as those concerns had to give way for the right of Amish people to educate
their children according to their own values, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), for
Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise their religion freely, West Virginia Board of Education v.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), and for interracial couples to marry the person they believed
was irreplaceable. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In doing this, courts do not
“endorse” marriage between same-sex couples, but merely affirm that those couples have
rights to liberty and equality under the Constitution, just as heterosexual couples do.


All plaintiffs in this case are same-sex couples. Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher
reside in Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Kami Young and Karina Willes reside in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Both couples left Wisconsin to enter into a legal marriage in Minnesota and
they wish to have their marriages recognized in Wisconsin. At the time that plaintiffs filed
their summary judgment motion, plaintiffs Young and Willes were expecting a baby

Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden reside in Madison, Wisconsin. They were
married in Canada in 2007 and wish to have their marriage recognized in Wisconsin.
Roy Badger and Garth Wangemann reside in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as do
Charvonne Kemp and Marie Carlson. Judi Trampf and Katy Heyning reside in Madison,
Wisconsin, as do plaintiffs Salud Garcia and Pam Kleiss. William Hurtubise and Leslie
“Dean” Palmer reside in Racine, Wisconsin. Each of these five couples wishes to marry in
Wisconsin. Hurtubise and Palmer want to adopt a child jointly, which they cannot do in
Wisconsin while they are unmarried.

All plaintiffs meet the requirements for getting married in Wisconsin, with the
exception that each wishes to marry someone of the same sex.



Defendants raise three preliminary arguments supporting their belief that Wisconsin’s
marriage ban on same-sex couples is immune from constitutional review, at least in this
court: (1) Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), is controlling precedent that precludes
lower courts from considering challenges to bans on same-sex marriage under the due process
clause or the equal protection clause; (2) marriage between same-sex couples is a “positive
right,” so the state has no duty to grant it; (3) under principles of federalism, states are
entitled to choose whether to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. None of these
arguments is persuasive.

A. Baker v. Nelson

In Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn. 1971), the Minnesota Supreme
Court held that same-sex couples do not have a right to marry under the due process clause
or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. When the plaintiffs
appealed, the United States Supreme Court had “no discretion to refuse adjudication of the
case on its merits” because the version of 28 U.S.C. § 1257 in effect at the time required
the Court to accept any case from a state supreme court that raised a constitutional challenge
to a state statute. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). (In 1988, Congress
amended § 1257 to eliminate mandatory jurisdiction in this context). However, the Court
“was not obligated to grant the case plenary consideration,” id., and it chose not to do so,
instead issuing a one sentence order stating that “[t]he appeal is dismissed for want of a
substantial federal question.” Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). At the time, this type
of summary dismissal was a common way for the Court to manage the relatively large
number of cases that fell within its mandatory jurisdiction. Randy Beck, Transtemporal
Separation of Powers in the Law of Precedent, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1405, 1439-40
(2012) (“Because the volume of . . . mandatory appeals did not permit full briefing and
argument in every case, the Court adopted the practice of summarily affirming many lower
court decisions and summarily dismissing others for want of a substantial federal question.
These summary affirmances and dismissals were routinely issued without any opinion from
the Court explaining its disposition.”). In fact, a few years later, the Court similarly handled
another case involving gay persons when it summarily affirmed a decision upholding the
constitutionality of a statute criminalizing sodomy. Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney for
City of Richmond, 403 F. Supp. 1199 (E.D. Va. 1975), aff'd, 425 U.S. 901 (1976).
Despite the absence of an opinion, full briefing or oral argument, a summary dismissal
such as Baker is binding precedent “on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided
by” the lower court. Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). See also Chicago
Sheraton Corp. v. Zaban, 593 F.2d 808, 809 (7th Cir. 1979) (“[A] summary disposition for
want of a substantial federal question is controlling precedent.”). As a result, defendants
argue that this court has no authority to consider the question whether a ban on marriage
between same-sex couples violates the Constitution. They cite Rodriguez de Quijas v.
Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989), in which the Court stated that
lower courts should adhere to the holdings of the Supreme Court, even if they “appea[r] to
rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, . . . leaving to this Court the
prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”

The rule for summary affirmances and dismissals is not so clear cut. Those orders
“are not of the same precedential value as would be an opinion of [the Supreme] Court
treating the question on the merits.” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 671 (1974). For
example, a summary dismissal is no longer controlling “when doctrinal developments
indicate” that the Court would take a different view now. Hicks, 422 U.S. at 344 (internal
quotations omitted). See also C. Steven Bradford, Following Dead Precedent: The Supreme
Court's Ill-Advised Rejection of Anticipatory Overruling, 59 Fordham L. Rev. 39, 51 (1990)
(citing Hicks for the proposition that “a precedent that has not been overruled may be
disregarded when later doctrinal developments render it suspect.”).

It would be an understatement to say that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on
issues similar to those raised in Baker has developed substantially since 1972. At the time,
few courts had addressed any issues relating to the constitutional rights of gay persons;
favorable decisions were even less frequent. E.g., Boutilier v. Immigration & Naturalization
Service, 387 U.S. 118 (1967) (homosexual individual could be denied admission to United
States on ground that homosexuality is a “psychopathic personality”). Perhaps because there
were so few people who identified publicly as gay, it was difficult for courts to empathize
with their plight.

In more recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a series of cases in which it has
denounced the view implicit in cases such as Baker that gay persons are “strangers to the
law.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635-36 (1996). In Romer, the Court invalidated
under the equal protection clause a state constitutional amendment that discriminated on
the basis of sexual orientation. In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Court
concluded that a Texas law criminalizing homosexual sodomy violated the due process
clause, overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S 186 (1986), and implicitly the summary
affirmance in Doe, 425 U.S. 901 (which the Court did not even mention).

To the extent Romer and Lawrence left any room for doubt whether the claims in this
case raise a substantial federal question, that doubt was resolved in United States v.
Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), in which the Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage
Act, a law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages authorized under state law.
Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had
discussed at length the continuing vitality of Baker and the majority had concluded over a
vigorous dissent that Baker was no longer controlling. Compare Windsor v. United States,
699 F.3d 169, 178-79 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Even if Baker might have had resonance for
Windsor's case in 1971, it does not today.”), with id. at 210 (Straub, J., dissenting)
(“Subjecting the federal definition of marriage to heightened scrutiny would defy or, at least,
call into question the continued validity of Baker, which we are not empowered to do.”). On
appeal before the Supreme Court, those defending the law continued to press the issue,
arguing that the lower court’s rejection of Baker as precedent made “the case for this Court's
review . . . overwhelming.” Windsor v. United States of America, Nos. 12-63 and 12-307,
Supplemental Brief for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of
Representatives, available at 2012 WL 5388782, at *5-6.

Despite the lower court’s and the parties’ debate over Baker, the Supreme Court
ignored the case in both its decision and during the oral argument for Windsor. (In a
companion case regarding same-sex marriage that was dismissed on prudential grounds,
counsel for petitioners began discussing Baker during oral argument, but Justice Ginsburg
cut him off, stating, “Mr. Cooper, Baker v. Nelson was 1971. The Supreme Court hadn't
even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny.” Oral
argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, available at 2013 WL 1212745, at *12.)
The Court’s silence is telling. Although the Court did not overrule Baker, the Court’s failure
to even acknowledge Baker as relevant in a case involving a restriction on marriage between
same-sex persons supports a view that the Court sees Baker as a dead letter. Cf. Romer, 517
U.S. at 642 (Scalia, J, dissenting) (noting Court’s failure to discuss Bowers in case decided
before Court overruled Bowers in Lawrence). Not even the dissenters in Windsor suggested
that Baker was an obstacle to lower court consideration challenges to bans on same-sex

Before Windsor, the courts were split on the question whether Baker was still
controlling. Compare Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 F. Supp. 2d 294,
307 (D. Conn. 2012) (Baker not controlling); Smelt v. County of Orange, 374 F. Supp. 2d
861, 873 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (same); In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. W.D. Wash.
2004) (same), with Massachusetts v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Services,
682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2012) (Baker controlling); Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996,
1003 (D. Nev. 2012) (same); Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1086 (D.
Haw. 2012) (same); Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15, 19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (same).
(Oddly, the first federal court to rule in favor of the right of same-sex couples to marry did
not discuss Baker. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010).) Since
Windsor, nearly every court to consider the question has concluded that Baker does not
preclude review of challenges to bans on same-sex marriage. E.g., Latta v. Otter,
1:13-CV-00482-CWD, — F. Supp. 2d. — , 2014 WL 1909999, *9 (D. Idaho May 13,
2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d. 456, 470 (E.D. Va. 2014); Bishop v. U.S. ex rel.
Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1277 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp.
2d 1181, 1195 (D. Utah 2013). The only outlier seems to be Merritt v. Attorney General,
CIV.A. 13-00215-BAJ, 2013 WL 6044329 (M.D. La. Nov. 14, 2013), in which the court
cited Baker for the proposition that “the Constitution does not require States to permit
same-sex marriages.” However, Merritt is not persuasive because the court did not discuss
Romer, Lawrence or Windsor in its decision.

Even defendants seem to acknowledge that the writing is on the wall. Although this
is a threshold issue, they bury their short discussion of it at the end of their summary
judgment brief. Accordingly, I conclude that, despite Baker, I may consider the merits of
plaintiffs’ claim.

B. Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights

What is perhaps defendants’ oddest argument relies on a distinction between what
defendants call “positive rights” and “negative rights.” In other words, the Constitution
protects the rights of individuals to be free from government interference (“negative rights”),
but it does not give them a right to receive government benefits (“positive rights”).
Defendants cite cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489
U.S. 189, 195 (1989), for the proposition that the Constitution “confer[s] no affirmative
right to governmental aid.” Thus, defendants say, although the due process clause may
protect the right of individuals to engage in certain intimate conduct (a “negative right”), it
“does not preclude a state from choosing not to give same-sex couples the positive right to
enter the legal status of civil marriage under state law.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 8.

Defendants’ argument has two problems. First, the Supreme Court has held on
numerous occasions that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
E.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414
U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). Thus, even if
marriage is a “positive right” as defendants understand that term, marriage stands as an
exception to the general rule.

Second, even if I assume that the state would be free to abolish the institution of
marriage if it wished, the fact is that Wisconsin obviously has not abolished marriage; rather,
it has limited the class of people who are entitled to marry. The question in this case is not
whether the state is required to issue marriage licences as a general matter, but whether it
may discriminate against same-sex couples in doing so. Even in cases in which an individual
does not have a substantive right to a particular benefit or privilege, once the state extends
that benefit to some of its citizens, it is not free to deny the benefit to other citizens for any
or no reason on the ground that a “positive right” is at issue. In fact, under the equal
protection clause, “the right to equal treatment . . . is not co-extensive with any substantive
rights to the benefits denied the party discriminated against.” Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S.
728, 739, 646 (1984). Therefore, “[t]he State may not . . . selectively deny its protective
services to certain disfavored minorities without violating the Equal Protection Clause.”
DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 197 n.3.

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status.
Defendants make a related argument that the government should not be required to
“officially endorse the intimate and domestic relationships that gay and lesbian persons may
choose to enter.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 9. They cite cases in which the Court held that
there is no constitutional right to subsidies for having an abortion and that the government
is entitled to have a preference for childbirth. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 201 (1991);
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 509 (1989). Along the same lines,
defendants argue that they are entitled to have a preference for marriage between oppositesex

Even setting aside the many obvious factual differences between marriage and
abortion, the analogy defendants attempt to draw is inapt for three reasons. First, as noted
above, the state is already issuing marriage licenses to some citizens. The comparison to
abortion would be on point only if, in the cases cited, the state had decided to fund
abortions for heterosexual women but not for lesbians.

Second, abortion cannot be compared to marriage because the government does not
have a monopoly on providing abortions. In other words, if the government refuses to use
its resources to provide or fund abortions, a woman may seek an abortion somewhere else.
In contrast, it is the state and only the state that can issue a marriage license. Thus,
defendants’ “preference” for marriage between opposite-sex couples is not simply a denial
of a subsidy, it is a denial of the right itself.

Defendants’ concern about “endorsing” marriage between same-sex couples seems to
be one that has been shared by both judges and legislators in the past. E.g., Goodridge v.
Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 986-87 (Mass. 2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting) (“The
plaintiffs' right to privacy . . . does not require that the State officially endorse their choices
in order for the right to be constitutionally vindicated.”); Dean v. District of Columbia
CIV.A. 90-13892, 1992 WL 685364, *4 (D.C. Super. June 2, 1992) (“[L]egislative
authorization of homosexual, same-sex marriages would constitute tacit state approval or
endorsement of the sexual conduct, to wit, sodomy, commonly associated with homosexual
status.”); Transcript of the Mark-Up Record of the Defense of Marriage Act, House Judiciary
Committee, June 12, 1996 (statement of Rep. Sonny Bono that he is voting for DOMA
because “I can’t tell my son [same-sex marriage is] ok, or I don’t think I can yet.”). These
concerns may be common, but they rest on a false assumption about constitutional rights.
Providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on an equal basis with opposite-sex couples
is not “endorsing” same-sex marriage; rather, it simply represents “a commitment to the law's
neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 623. See also
Bowers, 478 U.S. at 205-06 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (“[A] necessary corollary of giving
individuals freedom to choose how to conduct their lives is acceptance of the fact that
different individuals will make different choices.”).

There are many situations in which the Constitution requires the government to
provide benefits using neutral criteria, even with respect to groups that are unpopular or that
the government finds abhorrent, without any connotation that the government is endorsing
the group. E.g., Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819
(1995) (public university could not rely on concerns of improper endorsement to justify
refusal to fund student newspaper when funds were available to similarly situated groups);
Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) (state could not
rely on concerns about endorsement to deny request of Ku Klux Klan to erect monument
on public land when other similarly situated groups were allowed to do so). Thus, extending
marriage to same-sex couples does not require “approval” of homosexuality any more than
the Supreme Court “approved” of convicted criminals or deadbeat dads when it held in
Turner, 482 U.S. 78, and Zablocki, 434 U.S. 374, that the right to marry extends to
prisoners and fathers who have failed to make child support payments. In re Opinions of
the Justices to the Senate, 802 N.E.2d 565, 569 (Mass. 2004) (“This is not a matter of social
policy but of constitutional interpretation.”); Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864, 867 (Vt. 1999)
(“The issue before the Court . . . does not turn on the religious or moral debate over intimate
same-sex relationships, but rather on the statutory and constitutional basis for the exclusion
of same-sex couples from the secular benefits and protections offered married couples.”).

C. Judicial Restraint, Federalism and Respect for the Democratic Process

Defendants and amici argue that federal courts should not question a state’s
democratic determination regarding whether and when to extend marriage to same-sex
couples. Rather, courts should allow states to serve as “laboratories of democracy” so that
each state can learn from the experience of others and decide what works best for its own
citizens. Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 171 (2009); New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285
U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Defendants rely generally on principles of
federalism and more specifically on the fact that regulation of marriage is a matter
traditionally left to the states. A number of courts and dissenting judges in other cases have
asserted a similar argument. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718-19 (Alito, J., dissenting)
(“Because our constitutional order assigns the resolution of questions of this nature to the
people, I would not presume to enshrine either vision of marriage in our constitutional
jurisprudence.”); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 463-64 (Cal. 2008) (Baxter, J.,
dissenting) (“By . . . moving the policy debate from the legislative process to the court, the
majority engages in faulty constitutional analysis and violates the separation of powers.”);
Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 12 (N.Y. 2006) (“[W]e believe the present generation
should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives. We therefore
express our hope that the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address
their arguments to the Legislature; that the Legislature will listen and decide as wisely as it
can; and that those unhappy with the result—as many undoubtedly will be—will respect it
as people in a democratic state should respect choices democratically made.”); Goodridge,
798 N.E.2d at 974 (Spina, J., dissenting) (“What is at stake in this case is not the unequal
treatment of individuals or whether individual rights have been impermissibly burdened, but
the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts,
pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.”).

Although I take no issue with defendants’ observations about the important role that
federalism plays in this country, that does not mean that a general interest in federalism
trumps the due process and equal protection clauses. States may not “experiment” with
different social policies by violating constitutional rights.

The fundamental problem with defendants’ argument is that it cannot be reconciled
with the well-established authority of federal courts to determine the constitutionality of
state statutes or with the Fourteenth Amendment, the very purpose of which was to protect
individuals from overreaching by the states. Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203
(7th Cir. 1983) (“The Fourteenth Amendment . . . sought to protect Americans from
oppression by state government.”); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632, 665 (W.D. Tex.
2014) (“One of the court's main responsibilities is to ensure that individuals are treated
equally under the law.”). To further that purpose, federal courts have invalidated state laws
that violate constitutional rights, even when the law enjoys popular support and even when
the subject matter is controversial. City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 473
U.S. 432, 448 (1985) (“It is plain that the electorate as a whole, whether by referendum or
otherwise, could not order city action violative of the Equal Protection Clause.”); West
Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943) (“The very purpose of
a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political
controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them
as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not
be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”); Chambers v. State of
Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 241 (1940) (“Under our constitutional system, courts stand against
any winds that blow as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they
are helpless, weak, outnumbered, or because they are non-conforming victims of prejudice
and public excitement.”); Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 15–10, at 1351
(2d ed. 1988) (“As in the case of racial segregation, it is often when public sentiment is most
sharply divided that the independent judiciary plays its most vital national role in
expounding and protecting constitutional rights.”).

Federalism was a common defense to the segregationist laws of the Jim Crow era.
E.g., Naim v. Naim, 87 S.E.2d 749, 756 (Va. 1955) (in case upholding anti-miscegenation
law, stating that “[r]egulation of the marriage relation is, we think, distinctly one of the
rights guaranteed to the States and safeguarded by that bastion of States' rights”). See also
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 397 (1969)
(Douglas, J., dissenting) (“States' rights are often used as a cloak to cover unconstitutional
encroachments such as the maintenance of second-class citizenship for Negroes or Americans
of Mexican ancestry.”). However, that defense has long since been discredited. Defendants’
federalism argument arises in a different context, but they identify no way to distinguish
their argument from those the Supreme Court rejected long ago. Andersen v. King County,
138 P.3d 963, 1028-29 (Wash. 2006) (Bridges, J., dissenting) (in case involving claim for
same-sex marriage, stating that, “had the United States Supreme Court adopted the
plurality's [view of federalism], there would have been no Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).”).

Although Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage ban was approved by a majority of voters,
is part of the state constitution and deals with a matter that is a traditional concern of the
states, none of these factors can immunize a law from scrutiny under the United States
Constitution. The Supreme Court has not hesitated to invalidate any of those types of laws
if it concludes that the law is unconstitutional. Romer, 517 U.S. 620 (invalidating state
constitutional amendment); Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of State of Colorado,
377 U.S. 713, 736-37 (1964) (“[T]hat [a law] is adopted in a popular referendum is
insufficient to sustain its constitutionality. . . . A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be
infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.”); Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954) (striking down school segregation while
noting that “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local
governments”). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 68 (Haw. 1993) (“The result we
reach today is in complete harmony with the Loving Court's observation that any state's
powers to regulate marriage are subject to the constraints imposed by the constitutional right
to the equal protection of the laws.”). Even in Baker, 191 N.W.2d at 187, in which the
Minnesota Supreme Court brushed off a marriage claim brought by a same-sex couple, the
court acknowledged that “Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right
to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

To the extent that defendants mean to argue that a special rule should apply to the
issue of same-sex marriage, they cite no authority for that view. There is no asterisk next to
the Fourteen Amendment that excludes gay persons from its protections. Romer, 517 U.S.
at 635.

In a footnote, amici argue that cases such as Loving, Turner and Zablocki are
distinguishable because they “all involved laws that prevented individuals otherwise qualified
for marriage from marrying, and have not gone to the essentials of what marriage means as
the claim in this case does.” Amici Br., dkt. #109, at 17 n.3. However, this argument has
nothing to do with federalism or the democratic process; rather, it goes to the scope of the
right to marry, which is discussed below. Even if I assume for the purpose of this discussion
that amici are correct about the distinction between this and previous cases about marriage,
it would not mean that a general interest in what amici call “state sovereignty” would
preclude review of Wisconsin laws banning same-sex marriage.

Defendants and amici cite Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, and Schuette v. Coalition to
Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014), to support their argument, but neither
case is on point. First, defendants quote the statement in Schuette that there is “a
fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common. It is the right to speak
and debate and learn and then, as a matter of political will, to act through a lawful electoral
process.” Schuette, 134 S. Ct. at 1637. However, the holding in Schuette was that
Michigan did not violate the equal protection clause by enacting a state constitutional
amendment that prohibits discrimination in various contexts. The Court said nothing about
state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

Windsor is closer to the mark, but not by much. It is true that the Supreme Court
noted multiple times in its decision that the regulation of marriage is a traditional concern
of the states. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689-90 (“By history and tradition the definition and
regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within
the authority and realm of the separate States.”); id. at 2691 (“[R]egulation of domestic
relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States.”) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, the Court noted that the Defense of
Marriage Act departed from that tradition by refusing to defer to the states’ determination
of what qualified as a valid marriage. Id. at 2692 (“DOMA, because of its reach and extent,
departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.”).
However, defendants’ and amici’s reliance on Windsor is misplaced for three reasons. 

First, the Supreme Court’s observations were not new; the Court has recognized for many
years that the regulation of marriage is primarily a concern for the states. In his dissent,
Justice Scalia noted this point and questioned the purpose of the Court’s federalism
discussion. Id. at 2705 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“But no one questions the power of the States
to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the
point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is?”).
Thus, it would be inappropriate to infer that the Court was articulating a new, heightened
level of deference to marriage regulation by the states.

Second, the Court declined expressly to rely on federalism as a basis for its conclusion
that DOMA is unconstitutional. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2692 (“[I]t is unnecessary to decide
whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it
disrupts the federal balance.”). See also id. at 2705 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[T]he opinion
has formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism.”). But see id. at 2697
(Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (“[I]t is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism.”).

Third, and most important, the Court discussed DOMA’s encroachment on state
authority as evidence that the law was unconstitutional, not as a reason to preserve a law that
otherwise would be invalid. In fact, the Court was careful to point out multiple times the
well-established principle that an interest in federalism cannot trump constitutional rights.
Id. at 2691 (“State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the
constitutional rights of persons.”); id. at 2692 (“[T]he incidents, benefits, and obligations
of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary,
subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next.”); id. (“The States' interest
in defining and regulating the marital relation [is] subject to constitutional guarantees.”).
All this is not to say that concerns about federalism and the democratic process
should be ignored when considering constitutional challenges to state laws. It is obvious that
courts must be sensitive to judgments made by the legislature and the voters on issues of
social policy and should exercise the power of judicial review in rare instances. However,
these concerns are addressed primarily in the context of determining the appropriate
standard of review. We are long past the days when an invocation of “states’ rights” is
enough to insulate a law from a constitutional challenge.


Plaintiffs’ claim arises under two provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. First, plaintiffs contend that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex
marriage violates their fundamental right to marry under the due process clause. Second,
they contend that the ban discriminates against them on the basis of sex and sexual
orientation, in violation of the equal protection clause. As other courts have noted, the
rights guaranteed by these constitutional provisions “frequently overlap.” Goodridge, 798
N.E.2d at 953. See also Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 575 (“Equality of treatment and the due
process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty
are linked in important respects.”). In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states. However, each clause
presents its own questions about the appropriate standard of review. I will address the
standard first under the due process clause and then under the equal protection clause.

A. Fundamental Right to Marry

The “liberty” protected by the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment
includes the “fundamental right” to marry, a conclusion that the Supreme Court has
reaffirmed many times. Turner, 482 U.S. at 95 (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental
right.”); Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 384 (“[The] right to marry is of fundamental importance for
all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974)
(“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.”); Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 (referring to marriage as “fundamental freedom”);
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (right to marry is “central part of the liberty
protected by the Due Process Clause”). In Loving, 388 U.S. at 12, the Court went so far as
to say that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man.”

The Supreme Court has articulated a standard of review “[w]hen a statutory
classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right” such as the
right to marry, which is that the law “cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently
important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki,
434 U.S. at 388. See also Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788, 807 (9th Cir. 1980)
(Kennedy, J.) (“[S]ubstantive due process scrutiny of a government regulation involves a
case-by-case balancing of the nature of the individual interest allegedly infringed, the
importance of the government interests furthered, the degree of infringement, and the
sensitivity of the government entity responsible for the regulation to more carefully tailored
alternative means of achieving its goals.”).

1. Scope of the right to marry

The threshold question under the Zablocki standard is whether the right to marry
encompasses a right to marry someone of the same sex. Defendants say that it does not,
noting that “[t]he United States Supreme Court has never recognized” a “right to marry a
person of the same sex” and that same-sex marriage is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s
history and tradition,” which defendants say is a requirement to qualify as a fundamental
right under the Constitution, citing Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). Dfts.’
Br., dkt. #102, at 26. Amici add that “our Nation’s law, along with the law of our
antecedents from ancient to modern times, has consistently recognized the biological and
social realities of marriage, including its nature as a male-female unit advancing purposes
related to procreation and childrearing.” Amici Br., dkt. #109, at 6. They cite cases in which
they say the Supreme Court has “explicitly linked marriage and procreation.” Id. (quoting
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (“Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”), and Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S.
190, 211 (1888) (marriage is “the foundation of the family.”)). For many years, arguments
similar to these were accepted consistently by the courts. E.g., Sevcik, 911 F. Supp. 2d at
1013-14; Jackson, 884 F. Supp. 2d at 1071; Hernandez, 855 N.E. 2d at 10; Andersen, 138
P.3d at 979; Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196, 210 (N.J. 2006); Dean, 1992 WL 685364.
Defendants’ observation that the Supreme Court has not yet recognized a “right to
same-sex marriage” is both obvious and unhelpful. When the Court struck down Virginia’s
anti-miscegenation law in Loving, it had never before discussed a “right to interracial
marriage.” If the Court had decided previously that the Constitution protected marriage
between same-sex couples, this case would not be here. The question is not whether
plaintiffs’ claim is on all fours with a previous case, but whether plaintiffs’ wish to marry
someone of the same sex falls within the right to marry already firmly established in Supreme
Court precedent. For several reasons, I conclude that it does.

a. Purposes of marriage

I am not persuaded by amici’s argument that marriage’s link to procreation is the sole
reason that the Supreme Court has concluded that marriage is protected by the Constitution.
Although several courts have adopted that view, e.g., Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d
307, 332 (D.C. 1995); Baehr, 852 P.2d at 56, I believe tat it is misguided. First, gay persons
have the same ability to procreate as anyone else and same-sex couples often raise children
together, so there is no reason why a link between marriage and procreation should
disqualify same-sex couples.

Second, although the Supreme Court has identified procreation as a reason for
marriage, it has never described procreation as a requirement. This point has been clear at
least since Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). If it were true that the Court
viewed procreation as a necessary component of marriage, it could not have found that
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate by using contraception. Instead,
the Court described marriage as “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully
enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way
of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial
or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior
decisions.” Id. at 486.

To the extent that Griswold leaves any ambiguity, it is resolved by Turner, 482 U.S.
78, which raised the question whether prisoners retain the right to marry while incarcerated.
The Supreme Court concluded that they did, despite the fact that the vast majority of
prisoners cannot procreate with their spouses. The Court stated:
Many important attributes of marriage remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e.g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e.g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e.g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.
Id. at 95-96. Turner makes it clear that the Court views marriage as serving a variety of
important purposes for the couple involved, which may or may not include procreation, and
that it is ultimately for the couple to decide what marriage means to them. (Although the
Court stated that most inmate marriages “will be fully consummated” when the prisoner is
released, there is obviously a difference between consummating a marriage and procreation.
In any event, the Court did not suggest that an intent to consummate is a prerequisite to
marriage.) Because defendants identify no reason why same-sex couples cannot fulfill the
Court’s articulated purposes of marriage just as well as opposite-sex couples, this counsels
in favor of interpreting the right to marry as encompassing the choice of a same-sex partner.

b. Nature of the decision

In describing the type of conduct protected by the due process clause, including
marriage, family relationships, contraception, education and procreation, the Supreme Court
has stated that the common thread is that they all relate to decisions that are central to the
individual’s sense of identity and ability to control his or her own destiny. This point may
have been made most clearly in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.
See also Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578 (state may not “control th[e] destiny” of its citizens by
criminalizing certain intimate conduct); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972)
(Constitution protects right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into
matters . . . fundamentally affecting a person.”).

In addition, the Supreme Court has stated that the liberty protected in the due
process clause includes the right to choose your own family. Moore v. City of East
Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 506 (1977) (“A host of cases . . . have consistently
acknowledged a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter. . . . [W]hen the
government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must
examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to
which they are served by the challenged regulation.”). With respect to marriage in
particular, the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that it is a matter of individual choice.
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 435 (1990) (“[T]he regulation of constitutionally
protected decisions, such as where a person shall reside or whom he or she shall marry, must
be predicated on legitimate state concerns other than disagreement with the choice the
individual has made.”); Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 620 (1984) ("[T]he
Constitution undoubtedly imposes constraints on the State's power to control the selection
of one's spouse.”); Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 (“Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry,
or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed
by the State. . . The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”). See also Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 403-04
(Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment) (“The individual's interest in making the marriage
decision independently is sufficiently important to merit special constitutional protection.”).

In Bowers, when the Supreme Court refused to acknowledge that homosexual
relationships are entitled to constitutional protection, Justice Blackmun noted in his dissent
that the Court was being inconsistent with previous cases in which it had protected decisions
that “form so central a part of an individual's life.” Bowers, 478 U.S. at 204-05 (Blackmun,
J., dissenting). See also id. at 218-19 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“[E]very free citizen has the
same interest in ‘liberty’ that the members of the majority share. From the standpoint of the
individual, the homosexual and the heterosexual have the same interest in deciding how he
will live his own life.”). In Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567, the Court acknowledged that, in
Bowers, it had “fail[ed] to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake,” when it framed the
question as whether there is a “right to homosexual sodomy.” Instead, the Court should
have recognized that “our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection” to certain
“personal decisions” and that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy”
to make those decisions “just as heterosexual persons do.” Id. at 574.

Of course, Lawrence is not directly on point because that case was about sexual
conduct rather than marriage, but even in Lawrence, the Supreme Court acknowledged that
sexual conduct is but “one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence,
539 U.S. at 567. The Court went on to state that its holding “should counsel against
attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its
boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.” Id.
(emphasis added). More generally, the Court reaffirmed the principle that, in determining
the scope of a right under the due process clause, the focus should be on the nature of the
decision at issue and not on who is making that decision. Turner, 478 U.S. 82 (right to
marry extends to prisoners); Zablocki, 434 U.S. 374 (right to marry extends to father who
failed to make court-ordered child support payments); Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453 (right of
married couples to use contraception recognized in Griswold must be extended to single
persons as well). See also Latta, 2014 WL 1909999, at *12 (“[The argument that the right
to same-sex marriage is a] ‘new right’ . . . attempts to narrowly parse a right that the
Supreme Court has framed in remarkably broad terms. Loving was no more about the ‘right
to interracial marriage’ than Turner was about the ‘prisoner's right to marry’ or Zablocki was
about the ‘dead-beat dad's right to marry.’”).

If the scope of the right to marry is broad enough to include even those whose past
conduct suggests an inclination toward violating the law and abdicating responsibility, then
it is difficult to see why it should not be broad enough to encompass same-sex couples as
well. Defendants do not suggest that the decision about whom to marry is any less
important or personal for gay persons than it is for heterosexuals. Accordingly, I conclude
defendants are making the same mistake as the Court in Bowers when they frame the
question in this case as whether there is a “right to same-sex marriage” instead of whether
there is a right to marriage from which same-sex couples can be excluded. Latta, 2014 WL
1909999, at *13; Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1199-1200; Andersen, 138 P.3d at 1022
(Fairhurst, J., dissenting).

c. History of exclusion

Defendants argue that including the choice of a same-sex partner within the right to
marry would contradict Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 722 (1997), in which the
Supreme Court stated that its “substantive-due-process jurisprudence . . . has been a process
whereby the outlines of the ‘liberty’ specially protected by the Fourteenth Amendment . . .
have . . . been carefully refined by concrete examples involving fundamental rights found to
be deeply rooted in our legal tradition.” Although the Court previously had recognized “the
right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment,” it declined to expand the scope
of that right to include a more general “right to commit suicide,” in part because of “a
consistent and almost universal tradition that has long rejected the asserted right” to suicide.
Id. at 723-24. Defendants say that a similar conclusion is required with respect to the right
of same-sex couples to marry because that right had not been recognized in any state until

As an initial matter, it is hard to square aspects of Glucksberg with the holdings in
Griswold and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), in which the Court recognized the rights
to contraception and abortion, neither of which were “deeply rooted” in the country’s legal
tradition at the time. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 588 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Roe [has] been .
. . eroded by [Glucksberg] . .. [because] . . .Roe . . . subjected the restriction of abortion to
heightened scrutiny without even attempting to establish that the freedom to abort was
rooted in this Nation's tradition.”). Despite the tension between these cases, the Court has
reaffirmed the rights recognized in both Roe and Griswold since Glucksberg. Lawrence, 539
U.S. at 564 (citing holding of Griswold and Roe with approval); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530
U.S. 914, 921 (2000) (reaffirming Roe).

In any event, I conclude that Glucksberg is not instructive because that case involved
the question whether a right to engage in certain conduct (refuse medical treatment) should
be expanded to include a right to engage in different conduct (commit suicide), “two acts
[that] are widely and reasonably regarded as quite distinct.” Id. at 725. In this case, the
conduct at issue is exactly the same as that already protected: getting married. The question
is whether the scope of that right may be restricted depending on who is exercising the right.
Both Lawrence and Loving support a view that the state cannot rely on a history of
exclusion to narrow the scope of the right. When the Supreme Court decided those cases,
there had been a long history of states denying the rights being asserted. Although the trend
was moving in the other direction, many states still prohibited miscegenation in 1967 and
many still prohibited homosexual sexual conduct in 2003. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 573
(noting that 13 states retained sodomy laws); Loving, 388 U.S. at 7 (noting that 16 states
had anti-miscegenation laws). See also Andrew Sullivan, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con
Introduction xxv (Vintage 2004) (in 1968, one year after Loving, 72 percent of Americans
disapproved of interracial marriages); Michael Klarman, Courts, Backlash and the Struggle
for Same-Sex Marriage Introduction i (Oxford University Press 2012) (when Court decided
Brown v. Board of Education, 21 states required or permitted racial segregation in public

In both Loving and Lawrence, proponents of the laws being challenged relied on this
history of exclusion as evidence that the scope of the right should not include the conduct
at issue. Bowers, 478 U.S. at 211 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (In Loving, “defenders of the
challenged statute relied heavily on the fact that when the Fourteenth Amendment was
ratified, most of the States had similar prohibitions.”); Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 594-95
(Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[T]he only relevant point is that [sodomy] was criminalized—which
suffices to establish that homosexual sodomy is not a right deeply rooted in our Nation's
history and tradition.”) (internal quotations omitted). In fact, in Bowers, 478 U.S. at 192,
the Court itself relied on the fact that laws against sodomy had “ancient roots.” However,
in both Lawrence and Loving, the Supreme Court held that history was not dispositive,
particularly in light of more recent changes in law and society. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at
571-72 (“[There is] an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult
persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. History
and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive
due process inquiry.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); Casey, 505 U.S. at
847–48 (“Interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court
was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state
interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v.

Past practices cannot control the scope of a constitutional right. If the scope of the
right is so narrow that it extends only to what is so well-established that it has never been
challenged, then the right serves to protect only conduct that needs no protection. Casey,
505 U.S. at 847 (It is “tempting . . . to suppose that the Due Process Clause protects only
those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government
interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. . . . But
such a view would be inconsistent with our law.”). Thus, the scope of the right must be
framed in neutral terms to prevent arbitrary exclusions of entire classes of people. In this
way, courts remain true to their “obligation . . . to define the liberty of all [rather than]
mandate [their] own moral code.” Id. at 850.

d. “Definition” of marriage

Finally, amici attempt to distinguish Loving on the ground that sex, unlike race,
“go[es] to the essentials of what marriage means.” Amici Br., dkt. #109, at 17 n.3. See also
id. at 11 (opposite-sex requirement “has always been the universal essential element of the
marriage definition”). This sort of “definitional” argument against marriage between samesex
couples was prominent in many of the early cases, in which courts said that the right to
marry was not implicated because it simply was “impossible” for two people of the same sex
to marry. Baker, 191 N.W.2d at 187 (“But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense,
there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one
based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”); Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588, 590
(Ky. Ct. App. 1973) (“In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not
authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.”);
Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1191 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974) (“The operative distinction
[between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage] lies in the relationship which is
described by the term ‘marriage' itself, and that relationship is the legal union of one man
and one woman.”); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1122 (C.D. Cal. 1980) (“The
term ‘marriage’ . . . necessarily and exclusively involves a contract, a status, and a
relationship between persons of different sexes.”); Dean, 653 A.2d at 361 (Terry, J.,
concurring)(“same-sex ‘marriages’ are legally and factually—i.e., definitionally—impossible”).
Although amici try to rely on the inherent “nature” of marriage as a way to
distinguish anti-miscegenation laws from Wisconsin’s marriage amendment, the argument
simply reveals another similarity between the objections to interracial marriage and amici’s
objections to same-sex marriage. In the past, many believed that racial mixing was just as
unnatural and antithetical to marriage as amici believe homosexuality is today. Wolfe v.
Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 58 S.E. 899, 902-03 (Ga. 1907) (stating that “there is a
universally recognized distinction between the races” and that miscegenation is “unnatural”
and “productive of evil, and evil only”); Kinney v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. 858, 869 (1878)
(interracial marriage “should be prohibited by positive law” because it is “so unnatural that
God and nature seem to forbid” it); Lonas v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 287, 310 (1871)
(“The laws of civilization demand that the races be kept apart.”). This view about interracial
marriage was repeated by the trial court in Loving, 388 U.S. at 3 (“Almighty God created
the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such
marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to

Mildred Loving herself, one of the plaintiffs in Loving, saw the parallel between her
situation and that of same-sex couples. Martha C. Nussbaum, From Disgust to Humanity:
Sexual Orientation and the Constitution 140 (Oxford University Press 2010) (quoting
Mildred Loving as stating that “[t]he majority believed . . . that it was God’s plan to keep
people apart and that the government should discriminate against people in love” but that
she believes that “all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their
sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry”). Although amici may believe
that a particular sex is more “essential” to marriage than a particular race, this may reveal
nothing more than amici’s own views about what seems familiar and natural. Cf. John
Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill, “The Subjection of Women,” included in John Stuart
Mill, On Liberty and Other Writings 129 (Stefan Collini ed., Cambridge University Press
1989) (“Was there ever any domination which did not appear natural to those who
possessed it?”).

Even if I assume that amici are correct that the condemnation against miscegenation
was not as “universal” as it has been against same-sex marriage, the logical conclusion of
amici’s argument suggests that the Supreme Court would have been compelled to uphold
bans on interracial marriage if the opposition to them had been even stronger or more
consistent. Of course, the Court’s holding in Loving did not rest on a “loophole” that
interracial marriage had been legal in some places during some times.
A second flaw in defendants’ argument is that it is circular and would allow a state
to exclude a group from exercising a right simply by manipulating a definition. Civil
marriage is a legal construct, not a biological rule of nature, so it can be and has been changed
over the years; there is nothing “impossible” about defining marriage to include same-sex
couples, as has been demonstrated by the decisions of a number countries and states to do
just that.

Amici say that opposite-sex marriage reflects “biological and social realities,” Amici’s
Br., dkt. #109, at 3, but they do not explain what that means. To the extent amici are
referring again to procreation, I have discussed that issue above and need not address it
again. To the extent they are referring to stereotypically masculine and feminine roles that
men and women traditionally have held in marriage, that is not a legitimate basis for limiting
the scope of the right. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 541-42 (1996) (“State
actors may not rely on overbroad generalizations [about the sexes] to make judgments about
people that are likely to perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination.”); Goodridge, 798
N.E.2d at 965 n.28 (rejecting argument “that men and women are so innately and
fundamentally different that their respective ‘proper spheres’ can be rigidly and universally
delineated”). Although the Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are “[i]nherent
differences between men and women,” the state may not rely on those differences to impose
“artificial constraints on an individual's opportunity.” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533-34. I see
no reason why that principle should apply any differently in the context of marriage.
Accordingly, I conclude that the right to marry protected by the Constitution includes samesex

2. Significant interference

The next question under Zablocki is whether Wisconsin “significantly interferes” with
plaintiffs’ right to marry. It seems obvious that it does because Wisconsin law prohibits
plaintiffs from entering a marriage relationship that will be meaningful for them. Id. at 403-
04 (Stevens, J., concurring) (“A classification based on marital status is fundamentally
different from a classification which determines who may lawfully enter into the marriage
relationship.”). Cf. Perez v. Lippold,198 P.2d 17, 25 (Cal. 1948) (under anti-miscegenation
law, “[a] member of any of these races may find himself barred by law from marrying the
person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable”). Even defendants do not
suggest that marrying someone of the opposite sex is a viable option for plaintiffs. Thus, the
practical effect of the law is to impose an absolute ban on marriage for plaintiffs. Varnum
v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 885 (Iowa 2009) (“[T]he right of a gay or lesbian person under
the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is
no right at all” because it would require that person to “negat[e] the very trait that defines
gay and lesbian people as a class.”); Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal 44 (Vintage Books
1995)(ban on same-sex relationships bars gay persons “from the act of the union with
another” that many believe “to be intrinsic to the notion of human flourishing in the vast
majority of human lives”).

Neither defendants nor amici argue that domestic partnerships, which are available
to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples under Wis. Stat. chapter 770, are an adequate
substitute for marriage, such that the marriage ban does not “significantly interfere” with
plaintiffs’ rights, so I need not consider that question. However, most courts considering the
issue have found that domestic partnerships and civil unions do not cure the constitutional
injury because, even if the tangible benefits of a domestic partnership are similar to marriage,
creating a “separate but equal” institution still connotes a second-class status. E.g., Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 994 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Varnum, 763 N.W.2d at
906-07; Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 957 A.2d 407, 412 (Conn. 2008);
Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 445 (Cal. 2008); Opinions of the Justices, 802 N.E.2d at 571.
But see Sevcik, 911 F. Supp. 2d at 1015 (“The State has not crossed the constitutional line
by maintaining minor differences in civil rights and responsibilities that are not themselves
fundamental rights comprising the constitutional component of the right to marriage, or by
reserving the label of ‘marriage’ for one-man-one-woman couples in a culturally and
historically accurate way.”).

The only issue raised by defendants about the significance of the state’s interference
relates to the plaintiffs who were married legally in other states. Defendants say that
Wisconsin law does not interfere with those plaintiffs’ marriage rights because Wisconsin
has done nothing to invalidate their marriages or to deprive them of benefits that they could
receive from the state where they were married.

This argument is bewildering. Defendants acknowledge that Wisconsin “refuses to
recognize same-sex marriages lawfully contracted in other jurisdictions,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt.
#102, at 29, which means that the plaintiffs married in other states are deprived of any state
rights, protections or benefits related to marriage so long as they reside in Wisconsin. I have
no difficulty concluding that such a deprivation qualifies as “significant interference” under
Zablocki. De Leon, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (holding that state’s refusal to recognize out-ofstate
marriage interferes with plaintiffs’ right to marry); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp.
2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (same). See also Baskin v. Bogan, 1:14-CV-00355-RLY, 2014 WL
1814064 (S.D. Ind. May 8, 2014) (granting preliminary injunction on claim that state's
refusal to recognize out-of-state marriage interferes with plaintiffs' right to marry).
In sum, I conclude that Wisconsin’s marriage amendment and the Wisconsin statutes
defining marriage as requiring a “husband” and a “wife” significantly interfere with plaintiffs’
right to marry, so the laws must be supported by “sufficiently important state interests” that
are “closely tailored to effectuate only those interests,” Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388, in order
to survive constitutional scrutiny. However, because this case is likely to be appealed, before
I consider the state’s asserted interests for these laws, I will consider plaintiffs’ alternative
argument that they are entitled to heightened protection under the equal protection clause,
in the event the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagrees with my conclusion
regarding the scope of plaintiffs’ rights under the due process clause.

B. Equal Protection

In addition to placing limits on state deprivations of individual liberty, the Fourteenth
Amendment says that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” The equal protection clause “require[s] the state to treat each
person with equal regard, as having equal worth, regardless of his or her status.” Nabozny
v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446, 456 (7th Cir. 1996). Stated another way, it “requires the
democratic majority to accept for themselves and their loved ones what they impose on you
and me.” Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 300
(1990) (Scalia, J. concurring). “Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will
be just than to require that laws be equal in operation.” Railway Express Agency v. People
of State of New York, 336 U.S. 106, 112-13 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring).
Although the text of the equal protection clause does not distinguish among different
groups or classes, the Supreme Court has applied different standards of review under the
clause, depending on the type of classification at issue. Most classifications “must be upheld
against [an] equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts
that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” FCC v. Beach Commcations, Inc.,
508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). Generally, under a rational basis review, the state has “no
obligation to produce evidence” and “courts are compelled . . . to accept a legislature's
generalizations even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends. A classification
does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because
in practice it results in some inequality.” Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320-21

However, under some circumstances, the Supreme Court has applied a heightened
standard of review. For “suspect” classifications, such as race, alienage and national origin,
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313 & n.4 (1976), the court
applies “strict scrutiny,” under which the government must show that the classification is
“narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling” interest. Parents Involved in Community
Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 720 (2007). With respect to a small
number of other classifications, such as sex and legitimacy (often referred to as “quasisuspect”
classifications), the Court has applied what it calls intermediate scrutiny, under
which the classifications must be “substantially related” to the achievement of an “important
governmental objective.” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 524.

In this case, plaintiffs contend that some form of heightened scrutiny should apply
because the marriage amendment discriminates on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
I will address both of these contentions in turn.

1. Sex discrimination

Plaintiffs identify two theories of sex discrimination. The first is straightforward: if
each plaintiff was to choose a marriage partner of the opposite-sex, he or she would be
permitted to marry in Wisconsin. Therefore, plaintiffs say, it is because of their sex that
they cannot marry. Plaintiffs’ second theory is more nuanced and relies on the concept of
sex stereotyping. In particular, plaintiffs say that Wisconsin’s ban on marriage between
same-sex couples “perpetuates and enforces stereotypes regarding the expected and
traditional roles of men and women, namely that men marry and create families with
women, and women marry and create families with men.” Plts.’ Br., dkt. #71, at 18.
With respect to the first theory of sex discrimination, plaintiffs analogize their
situation to the plaintiffs in Loving, who were prohibited from marrying because of the race
of their partner. The state argued in Loving that the anti-miscegenation law was not
discriminatory because it applied to both whites and blacks, but the Supreme Court rejected
that argument, stating that “we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the
fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of
justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes
drawn according to race.” Loving, 388 U.S. at 7-8. See also McLaughlin v. State of Florida,
379 U.S. 184, 191 (1964) (statute prohibiting interracial cohabitation is unconstitutional,
even though it penalized both whites and blacks; “[j]udicial inquiry under the Equal
Protection Clause . . . does not end with a showing of equal application among the members
of the class defined by the legislation”). Plaintiffs argue that the same reasoning should
apply in this case. In other words, plaintiffs believe that the same-sex marriage ban
discriminates on the basis of sex, even though it applies equally to both men and women,
because it draws a line according to sex.

In the first case resolved in favor of same-sex couples seeking to marry, the court
adopted this theory, even though the plaintiffs had not argued it initially. Baehr v. Lewin,
852 P.2d 44, 60 (Haw. 1993). Since then, however, the sex discrimination theory has been
rejected by most courts to consider it, even those ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on other
grounds. E.g., Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 6:13-CV-01834-MC, 2014 WL 2054264, at *7 (D. Or.
May 19, 2014); Latta, 2014 WL 1909999, at *15; Bishop, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 1286-87;
Sevcik, 911 F. Supp. 2d at 1005; Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1098-99
(D. Haw. 2012); Griego v. Oliver, 2014-NMSC-003, 316 P.3d 865, 880; Kerrigan, 957 A.2d
at 509; Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 438; Conaway v. Deane, 4932 A.2d 571, 601-02 (Md.
2007); Hernandez, 855 N.E.2d at 10-11. But see Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. at 1206 (“[T]he
court finds that the fact of equal application to both men and women does not immunize
Utah's Amendment 3 from the heightened burden of justification that the Fourteenth
Amendment requires of state laws drawn according to sex.”); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704
F. Supp. 2d at 996 (“Sexual orientation discrimination can take the form of sex
discrimination.”); Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 3AN-95-6562 CI, 1998 WL 88743,
*6 (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 1998) (“That this is a sex-based classification can readily be
demonstrated: if twins, one male and one female, both wished to marry a woman and
otherwise met all of the Code's requirements, only gender prevents the twin sister from
marrying under the present law. Sex-based classification can hardly be more obvious.”).
Although the reasoning of the courts rejecting the theory has varied, the general view
seems to be that a sex discrimination theory is not viable, even if the government is making
a sex-based classification with respect to an individual, because the intent of the laws
banning same-sex marriage is not to suppress females or males as a class. E.g., Sevcik, 911
F. Supp. 2d at 1005 (“[B]ecause it is homosexuals who are the target of the distinction here,
the level of scrutiny applicable to sexual-orientation-based distinctions applies.”). In other
words, courts view this theory as counterintuitive and legalistic, an attempt to “bootstrap”
sexual orientation discrimination into a claim for sex discrimination.

With respect to plaintiffs’ second theory, there is support in the law for the view that
sex stereotyping is a form of sex discrimination. Virginia, 518 U.S. at 541-42 (“State actors
controlling gates to opportunity . . . may not exclude qualified individuals based on fixed
notions concerning the roles and abilities of males and females.”) (internal quotations
omitted); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 250–51 (1989) (“[W]e are beyond
the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they
matc[h] the stereotypes associated with their group.”). See also Doe by Doe v. City of
Belleville, Illinois, 119 F.3d 563, 581 (7th Cir. 1997)(“A woman who is harassed . . . because
[she] is perceived as unacceptably ‘masculine’ is harassed ‘because of’ her sex. . . . In the
same way, a man who is harassed because . . . he exhibits his masculinity in a way that does
not meet his coworkers' idea of how men are to appear and behave, is harassed ‘because of’
his sex.”) (citations omitted). But see Hamm v. Weyauwega Milk Products, Inc., 332 F.3d
1058, 1068 (7th Cir. 2003) (Posner, J., concurring) (“‘Sex stereotyping’ should not be
regarded as a form of sex discrimination, though it will sometimes . . . be evidence of sex
discrimination.”). Some commentators have argued that sexual orientation discrimination
should be seen as the ultimate form of sex stereotyping because it is grounded in beliefs
about appropriate gender roles, e.g., Sylvia A. Law, Homosexuality and the Social Meaning
of Gender, 1988 Wis. L. Rev. 187 (1988), but plaintiffs have not cited any courts that have
adopted that theory and I am not aware of any.

Plaintiffs’ arguments about sex discrimination are thought-provoking enough to have
caught the interest of at least one Supreme Court justice. Oral argument, Hollingsworth v.
Perry, No. 12-144, 2013 WL 1212745, at *13 (statement of Kennedy, J.) (“Do you believe
[that a ban on same-sex marriage] can be treated as a gender-based classification? It's a
difficult question that I've been trying to wrestle with it.”). However, neither the Supreme
Court nor the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has embraced either theory asserted
by plaintiffs. With respect to the first theory, the court of appeals assumed in a recent case
that a sex-based classification may be permissible if it imposes comparable burdens on both
sexes. Hayden ex rel. A.H. v. Greensburg Community School Corp., 743 F.3d 569, 581 (7th
Cir. 2014) (“Sex-differentiated standards consistent with community norms may be
permissible to the extent they are part of a comprehensive, evenly-enforced grooming code
that imposes comparable burdens on both males and females alike.”). With respect to the
second theory, the court has stated that there is “a considerable overlap in the origins of sex
discrimination and homophobia,” but the court declined to “go so far” as “to conclude that
anti-gay bias should, in fact, be understood as a form of sex discrimination.” Doe, 119 F.3d
at 593 n.27. The Supreme Court has not discussed either theory as it relates to sexual

Because of the uncertainty in the law and because I am deciding the case in plaintiffs’
favor on other grounds, I decline to wade into this jurisprudential thicket at this time.
However, the court of appeals’ statement that sex and sexual orientation are related provides
some support for a view that, like sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination
should be subjected to heightened scrutiny.

2. Sexual orientation discrimination

a. Supreme Court guidance

The Supreme Court has never decided explicitly whether heightened scrutiny should
apply to sexual orientation discrimination. Lee v. Orr, 13-CV-8719, 2013 WL 6490577 n.1
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2013) (“[T]he Supreme Court has yet to expressly state the level of
scrutiny that courts are to apply to claims based on sexual orientation.”). In Romer, 517
U.S. at 632, in which the Court invalidated a state constitutional amendment because it
discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, the Court ignored the question whether
heightened scrutiny should apply, perhaps because it was unnecessary in light of the Court’s
conclusion that the law in dispute “lack[ed] a rational relationship to legitimate state
interests.” The Court did not discuss the standard of review in Windsor either.

Despite the lack of an express statement from the Supreme Court, some courts and
commentators have argued that the Court’s analyses in Romer and especially Windsor
require a conclusion that the Court, in practice, is applying a higher standard than rational
basis. For example, in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471,
480-81 (9th Cir. 2014), the court considered the standard of review to apply to sexual
orientation discrimination in the context of jury selection. The court stated that “Windsor
review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of
scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than
rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied
to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.” Id. See also Evan Gerstmann,
Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution, 19 (2d ed. Cambridge University Press 2008)
(“Some scholars, including this author, have argued that the Romer Court actually applied
a level of scrutiny somewhat greater than rational basis review” because “[t]he Court seemed
unusually skeptical of [the state’s] professed reasons” for [the law].”). This conclusion is
consistent with Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2706, in which
he stated that “the Court certainly does not apply anything that resembles [the
rational-basis] framework.”

In SmithKline, 740 F.3d at 981-83, the court of appeals relied on four factors to
conclude that Windsor applied heightened scrutiny: (1) the Supreme Court did not consider
“conceivable” justifications for the law not asserted by the defenders of the law; (2) the
Court required the government to “justify” the discrimination; (3) the Court considered the
harm that the law caused the disadvantaged group; and (4) the Court did not afford the law
a presumption of validity. Finding all of these things inconsistent with rational basis review,
the court of appeals concluded that the Supreme Court must have been applying some form
of heightened scrutiny.

I agree with the court in SmithKline that the Supreme Court’s analysis in Windsor
(as well as in Romer) had more “bite” than a rational basis review would suggest. In fact, in
Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 580, she acknowledged that the
Court conducted “a more searching inquiry” in Romer than it had in the ordinary case
applying rational basis review.

It may be that Windsor’s silence is an indication that the Court is on the verge of
making sexual orientation a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. Cf. Frontiero v.
Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 683 (1973) (plurality opinion) (stating for first time that sex
discrimination should receive heightened scrutiny and relying on previous case in which
Court had “depart[ed] from a ‘traditional’ rational-basis analysis with respect to [a]
sex-based classificatio[n]” but Court did not say expressly in previous case that it was
applying heightened standard of review). Alternatively, it may be that Romer and Windsor
suggest that “[t]he hard edges of the tripartite division have . . . softened,” and that the
Court has moved “toward general balancing of relevant interests.” Cass Sunstein, Foreword:
Leaving Things Undecided, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 77 (1996). However, in the absence of a
clear statement from the Court regarding the standard of review it was applying, it is difficult
to rely on those cases as authority for applying heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation
discrimination. Accordingly, I will consider next whether the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit has provided definitive guidance.

b. Guidance from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Defendants argue that circuit precedent prohibits this court from applying heightened
scrutiny, but I disagree. In Ben–Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454, 464 (7th Cir.1989), the
court of appeals applied rational basis review to a law banning gays in the military, but in
Nabozny, 92 F.3d at 457-58, the court stated that Ben-Shalom’s holding was limited to the
military context. This makes sense in light of the general rule that courts must be more
deferential to the government in matters of national security. E.g., Rostker v. Goldberg, 453
U.S. 57, 68 (1981) (upholding sex-based classification in military context). In Nabozny,
a case involving allegations that school officials failed to protect a student from harassment
because of a perception that he was gay, the court stated that it “need not consider whether
homosexuals are a suspect or quasi-suspect class” because, viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff as required on a motion for summary judgment, the defendants’
actions lacked any rational basis. Id. at 458.

Since Nabozny, the court of appeals has not engaged in any further analysis of the
question whether sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to heightened
scrutiny. In Schroeder v. Hamilton School District, 282 F.3d 946, 950-51 (7th Cir. 2002),
the court stated that “homosexuals do not enjoy any heightened protection under the
Constitution,” but that statement was dicta because the court did not rely on the standard
of review to decide the case. Instead, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove
that the defendants treated him less favorably because of his sexual orientation. Schroeder,
282 F.3d at 956 (“Schroeder failed to demonstrate that the defendants treated his
complaints of harassment differently from those lodged by non-homosexual teachers, that
they intentionally discriminated against him, or acted with deliberate indifference to his
complaints because of his homosexuality.”).

“[D]ictum is not authoritative. It is the part of an opinion that a later court, even if
it is an inferior court, is free to reject.” United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292 (7th
Cir. 1988). As a general rule, district courts should be guided by the views of the court of
appeals or the Supreme Court, even when those views are expressed in dicta, Reich v.
Continental Casualty Co., 33 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir.1994), but, when dicta is not
supported by reasoning, its persuasive force is greatly diminished. Sutton v. A.O. Smith Co.,
165 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir.1999); Wilder v. Apfel, 153 F.3d 799, 803 (7th Cir. 1998);
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 916 F.2d 1174, 1176 (7th
Cir. 1990). In Schroeder, the court did not provide any reasoning for its conclusion that
sexual orientation discrimination is not entitled to heightened scrutiny; instead the court
simply cited Romer, 517 U.S. at 634-35, which did not address the issue, and Bowers, 478
U.S. at 196, which was overruled a year after Schroeder in Lawrence. Cf. Kerrigan, 957 A.2d
at 468 (2008) (concluding that sexual orientation discrimination is subject to heightened
scrutiny, despite case law to contrary, because those cases “rely so heavily on Bowers”).
Accordingly, I conclude that Schroeder does not resolve the question of the appropriate
standard of review to apply to discrimination against gay persons.

c. Factors relevant to determining status as suspect or quasi-suspect class

Because neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
has provided definitive guidance on whether sexual orientation discrimination requires
heightened scrutiny, I must make that determination on my own. Other courts making the
same determination have identified four factors that the Supreme Court has discussed, often
in dicta, as relevant to the analysis: (1) whether the class has been subjected to a history of
discrimination, Murgia, 427 U.S. at 313; (2) whether individuals in the class are able to
contribute to society to the same extent as others, Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440–41; (3)
whether the characteristic defining the class is “immutable,” Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635,
638 (1986); and (4) whether the class is “politically powerless.” Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S.
587, 602 (1987). But see Virginia, 518 U.S. at 568 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“We have no
established criterion for ‘intermediate scrutiny’ either, but essentially apply it when it seems
like a good idea to load the dice.”). Since Windsor, all the courts to consider the issue have
concluded that each of the factors applies to sexual orientation discrimination. E.g.,
Whitewood v. Wolf, 1:13-CV-1861, — F. Supp. 2d — , 2014 WL 2058105, at *14 (M.D.
Pa. May 20, 2014); De Leon, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 650-51; Bassett v. Snyder, 951 F. Supp.
2d 939, 960 (E.D. Mich. 2013).

Defendants do not challenge plaintiffs’ contentions that gay persons have been
subjected to a history of discrimination and that sexual orientation does not impair an
individual’s ability to contribute to society, so I see no reason to repeat the analyses of the
many courts that have reached the same conclusion. E.g., Windsor v. United States, 699
F.3d 169, 182 (2d Cir. 2012); De Leon , 975 F. Supp. 2d at 650-51; Pedersen v. Office of
Personnel Management, 881 F. Supp. 2d 294, 316 (D. Conn. 2012); Golinski v. U.S. Office
of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, 986 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Perry, 704
F.Supp.2d at 1002; Varnum, 763 N.W.2d at 889; Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 435 (2008). In
fact, I am not aware of any cases in which a court concluded that being gay hinders an
individual’s ability to contribute to society.

With respect to immutability, defendants do not directly challenge the view that it
applies to sexual orientation, but instead argue in a footnote that the authorities plaintiffs
cite do not support their position. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 40 n.10. With respect to
political powerlessness, defendants deny that it applies to gay persons, pointing to various
statutes in Wisconsin and around the country that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination
in contexts other than marriage, such as employment. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 40-41. In
addition, they cite public opinion polls suggesting that attitudes about homosexuality have
become more positive in recent years. Most courts concluding that sexual orientation
discrimination is not subject to heightened scrutiny have relied on a similar argument about
political power. E.g., Sevcik, 911 F. Supp. 2d at 1008 (“[The political success] the
homosexual-rights lobby has achieved . . . indicates that the group has great political power.
. . . In 2012 America, anti-homosexual viewpoints are widely regarded as uncouth.”).

I disagree with defendants that heightened scrutiny is inappropriate, either because
of any doubts regarding whether sexual orientation is “immutable” or because of any political
successes gay persons have had. In applying the four factors to a new class, it is important
to consider the underlying reasons for applying heightened scrutiny and to look at the classes
that already receive heightened scrutiny to see how the factors apply to them.
With respect to immutability, the Supreme Court has applied heightened scrutiny to
discrimination on the basis of alienage, e.g., In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973); Sugarman
v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971), even though
aliens can become citizens. Sugarman, 413 U.S. at 657 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (“[T]here
is a marked difference between a status or condition such as illegitimacy, national origin, or
race, which cannot be altered by an individual and the ‘status' [that can be] changed by . .
. affirmative acts.”). The Court also applies heightened scrutiny to discrimination on the
basis of religion, e.g., Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982), even though religion is
something that a person chooses. (Although most religious discrimination claims arise under
the First Amendment, it is likely that the same standard would apply under the equal
protection clause. Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512
U.S. 687, 715 (1994) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (“[T]he Religion Clauses—the Free Exercise
Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Religious Test Clause, Art. VI, cl. 3, and the Equal
Protection Clause as applied to religion—all speak with one voice on this point: Absent the
most unusual circumstances, one's religion ought not affect one's legal rights or duties or
benefits.”).) Even a person’s gender is not written in stone. E.g., Glenn v. Brumby, 724 F.
Supp. 2d 1284, 1289 (N.D. Ga. 2010) (discussing process leading up to sex reassignment

Rather than asking whether a person could change a particular characteristic, the
better question is whether the characteristic is something that the person should be required
to change because it is central to a person’s identity. Of course, even if one could change his
or her race or sex with ease, it is unlikely that courts (or virtually anyone else) would find
that race or sex discrimination is any more acceptable than it is now.

In Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577, the Supreme Court found that sexual expression is “an
integral part of human freedom” and is entitled to constitutional protection, which supports
a conclusion that the law may not require someone to change his or her sexual orientation.
Further, sexual orientation has been compared to religion on the ground that both “often
simultaneously constitut[e] or infor[m] a status, an identity, a set of beliefs and practices,
and much else besides.” Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California,
Hastings College of the Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 2995 n.1 (2010)
(Stevens, J., concurring). See also Martha Nussbaum, From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual
Orientation & Constitutional Law 39 (Oxford University Press 2010) (like religion, sexual
orientation “goes to the heart of people’s self-definition, their search for identity and selfexpression”).
For this reason, I agree with those courts that have concluded that, regardless
whether sexual orientation is “immutable,” it is “fundamental to a person's identity,” De
Leon, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 651, which is sufficient to meet this factor. Bassett, 951 F. Supp.
2d at 960; Griego, 316 P.3d at 884.

With respect to political powerlessness, it seems questionable whether it is really a
relevant factor. When the Supreme Court has mentioned political power, it has been only
to include it in a list of other reasons for denying a request for heightened scrutiny. E.g.,
Bowen, 483 U.S. at 603; Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 445; Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 at 313–14.
Defendants cite no case in which the Supreme Court has determined that it is a dispositive
factor. On a practical level, it would be challenging to apply because it would suggest that
classes could fall in and out of protected status depending on some undetermined level of
political success, an idea for which the Court has never even hinted support. Regents of
University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 298 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.)
(rejecting view that equal protection clause should be “hitch[ed] . . . to . . . transitory
considerations [that] vary with the ebb and flow of political forces”).

Perhaps most telling is that almost none of the classifications that receive heightened
scrutiny, including race or sex, could satisfy this factor if the test were whether the group has
had any political success. Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 443. Particularly because
discrimination against white citizens is subjected to strict scrutiny, e.g., City of Richmond
v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989), it is difficult to understand why a group’s political
power should be determinative.

To the extent that “political powerlessness” is an appropriate factor, I conclude that
the question is best framed as whether the class is inherently vulnerable in the context of the
ordinary political process, either because of its size or history of disenfranchisement. In light
of the fact that gay persons make up only a small percentage of the population and that there
is no dispute that they have been subjected to a history of discrimination, I have no difficulty
in concluding that sexual orientation meets this factor as well. Windsor, 699 F.3d at 184;
Pedersen, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 332.

In any event, a review of the various classifications that receive heightened scrutiny
(race, sex, alienage, legitimacy) reveals a common factor among them, which is that the
classification is seldom “relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest.”
Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440. Under these circumstances, the classification is more likely “to
reflect prejudice and antipathy,” so courts should be more suspicious of the discrimination.
Id. See also Pedersen, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 319 (“The ability to contribute to society has
played a critical and decisive role in Supreme Court precedent both denying and extending
recognition of suspect class to other groups.”). Neither defendants nor amici offer an
argument that sexual orientation would not meet that standard.

Accordingly, I conclude that sexual orientation discrimination is subject to heightened
scrutiny. The Supreme Court has not explained how to distinguish a “suspect” classification
from a “quasi-suspect” classification, but sexual orientation is most similar to sex among the
different classifications that receive heightened protection, Doe, 119 F.3d at 593 n. 27.
Because sex discrimination receives intermediate scrutiny and the difference between
intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny is not dispositive in this case, I will assume that
intermediate scrutiny applies, which means that defendants must show that Wisconsin’s laws
banning marriage between same-sex couples must be “substantially related” to the
achievement of an “important governmental objective,” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 524, to survive
scrutiny under the equal protection clause.

3. Other considerations relevant to the standard of review

In cases involving both suspect classes as well as other groups of people, the Supreme
Court has taken into account the nature and severity of the deprivation at issue, particularly
when it seems to threaten principles of equal citizenship or imposes a stigma on a particular
class. Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448 (striking down law that restricted where mentally disabled,
a nonsuspect class, could live); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223-24, (1982) (in equal
protection case involving nonsuspect class’s access to public education, noting that “[p]ublic
education is not a ‘right’ granted to individuals by the Constitution. But neither is it merely
some governmental ‘benefit’ indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation”
and that, as a result of a denial of education, the“[t]he stigma of illiteracy will mark [the
uneducated children] for the rest of their lives”); Brown, 347 U.S. at 494 (segregation
“generates a feeling of inferiority as to [black students’] status in the community that may
affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”). See also Cleburne, 473
U.S. at 460 (Marshall, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (“I have
long believed the level of scrutiny employed in an equal protection case should vary with the
constitutional and societal importance of the interest adversely affected and the recognized
invidiousness of the basis upon which the particular classification is drawn.”). This focus
on stigma and equal citizenship makes sense because one purpose of the equal protection
clause is to prohibit “stigmatizing members of the disfavored group as ‘innately inferior’ and
therefore as less worthy participants in the political community.” Heckler v. Mathews, 465
U.S. 728, 739 (1984).

The Supreme Court’s focus on the nature and severity of the deprivation is
particularly apparent in its more recent cases touching on sexual orientation. In Romer, 517
U.S. at 627, 629, 631, 635, the Court noted that the state constitutional amendment at
issue (which prohibited municipalities from enacting ordinances that banned sexual
orientation discrimination) imposed “severe consequence[s],” “special disabilit[ies]” and
“immediate, continuing, and real injuries” on gay persons and no one else and that the
amendment “put [them] in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both
the private and governmental spheres.” The Court contrasted the challenged law with
differential treatment the Court had upheld in the past regarding economic activities such
as advertising and operating a pushcart. Id. at 632. In part because of the nature of the
harm, the Court concluded that the state law amounted to “class legislation” and “a
classification of persons undertaken for its own sake.” Id. at 635. The Court quoted the
famous dissenting opinion by Justice Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559
(1896), for the proposition that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among
citizens.” Id. at 623.

Although the Supreme Court did not decide Lawrence under the equal protection
clause, it continued to use similar language. For example, the Court noted that the sodomy
law at issue “demeans the lives of homosexual persons,” “invit[es] . . . discrimination
[against gay persons] both in the public and in the private spheres” and “imposes” a “stigma”
on them. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 575.

Finally, in Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693, the Supreme Court concluded that, by
denying federal benefits to same-sex couples married under the laws of a particular state, the
“practical effect [was] to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all
who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”
The Court repeated the theme of stigma and second-class status multiple times. Id. at 2694
(DOMA “tells [same-sex] couples [married under state law], and all the world, that their
otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples
in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the
couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”); id. at 2696 (“DOMA
instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact,
including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of
others.”); id. (effect of DOMA is to treat some persons as “living in marriages less respected
than others.”). Throughout the decision, the Court emphasized that DOMA imposes a
disability on same-sex couples, demeans them, violates their dignity and lowers their status.
Id. at 2692, 2695.

Although the Court did not explain in Romer, Lawrence or Windsor how these
considerations affected the standard of review, it seems clear that they were important to the
decisions. Thus, even if one assumes that same-sex marriage does not fall within the right
recognized in Loving and other cases, this does not mean that courts may ignore the nature
and severity of the deprivation that a ban imposes on those couples.

Of course, the tangible benefits that marriage provides a couple are numerous.
However, many would argue that the intangible benefits of marriage are equally important,
if not more so. Recognizing this, some courts have found that the denial of marriage rights
to same-sex couples necessarily is a denial of equal citizenship. E.g., Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d
at 948. Others have concluded that the significance of the deprivation must be incorporated
into the standard of review. Baker, 744 A.2d at 884 (“The legal benefits and protections
flowing from a marriage license are of such significance that any statutory exclusion must
necessarily be grounded on public concerns of sufficient weight, cogency, and authority that
the justice of the deprivation cannot seriously be questioned.”). I agree with both

In sum, I conclude that Wisconsin’s marriage amendment and the other laws at issue
are subject to heightened scrutiny under both the due process clause and the equal
protection clause. First, because I have concluded that the marriage ban significantly
interferes with plaintiffs’ right to marry under the due process clause, defendants must show
that the ban furthers “sufficiently important state interests” that are “closely tailored to
effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388. With respect to the equal
protection clause, the marriage ban is subject to intermediate scrutiny because the ban
discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, the nature and severity of the
deprivation is a relevant factor that must be considered. However, regardless whether I
apply strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or some “more searching” form of rational basis
review under the equal protection clause, I conclude that the marriage amendment and
related statutes cannot survive constitutional review.


The final question is whether defendants have made an adequate showing that the
Wisconsin laws prohibiting same-sex marriage further a legitimate interest. Defendants and
amici rely on several interests in their briefs: (1) preserving tradition; (2) encouraging
procreation generally and “responsible” procreation in particular; (3) providing an
environment for “optimal child rearing”; (4) protecting the institution of marriage; (5)
proceeding with caution; and (6) helping to maintain other legal restrictions on marriage.
These interests are essentially the same as those asserted by other states in other cases
around the country involving similar laws.

Defendants’ asserted interests also overlap substantially with the interests asserted
in Windsor by the proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act. Brief on the Merits for
Respondent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives,
United States of America v. Windsor, No. 12-307, 2013 WL 267026 (citing interests in
“providing a stable structure to raise unintended and unplanned offspring,” “encouraging the
rearing of children by their biological parents” and “promoting childrearing by both a mother
and a father”). However, the Supreme Court did not consider these interests individually,
even though the dissenting justices relied on them. Id. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting).
Instead, the Court stated that “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to
disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in
personhood and dignity.” Id. at 2696. This is similar to the approach the Court took in
Loving, 388 U.S. at 11 (“There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of
invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.”).

The Court’s silence raises the question whether its refusal to credit the interests
asserted by the defenders of DOMA requires the same approach in this case. On its face,
Windsor does not apply to state law bans on marriage between same-sex couples. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. at 2696 (limiting its holding to denial of federal benefits of same-sex couples
married under state law); Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1194 (“The Windsor court did not
resolve this conflict in the context of state-law prohibitions of same-sex marriage.”).
However, as noted by Justice Scalia in his dissent, it is difficult to cabin the Court’s
reasoning to DOMA only. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2709-10. If anything, the Court’s
concerns about the “second-class status” imposed by DOMA on same-sex couples would be
more pronounced by a total denial of the right to marry than by the “second-tier” marriages
at issue in Windsor that provided state but not federal benefits. Further, although Windsor
involved a federal law rather than a state law, I am not aware of any other case in which the
Court applied equal protection principles differently to state and federal government.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976) (“Equal protection analysis [with respect to the
federal government] in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth
Amendment [with respect to the states.]”). This may be the reason why all federal courts
reviewing a ban on same-sex marriage since Windsor have concluded that the ban is

Defendants say that Windsor is distinguishable, arguing that the Supreme Court
relied on the “unusual character” of the discrimination at issue in that case, just as the Court
did in Romer. In Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693, the Court stated that DOMA was unusual
because it departed from the federal government’s ordinary practice of deferring to the states
on marriage issues. In Romer, 517 U.S. at 632 the Court relied on the “sheer breadth” of
the discriminatory law.

Although defendants are correct that the facts in this case are not the same as
Windsor or Romer, there is a colorable argument that Wisconsin’s marriage amendment is
“unusual” in other ways. First, the amendment represents a rare, if not unprecedented, act
of using the Wisconsin Constitution to restrict constitutional rights rather than expand them
and to require discrimination against a particular class. Cf. Akhil Amar, America’s
Unwritten Constitution 451, 453 (Basic Books 2012) (“[An amendment] to restrict the
equality rights of same-sex couples should be viewed with special skepticism because the
amendmen[t] would do violence to the trajectory of the American constitutional project over
the past two hundred years. . . . [Such an] illiberal amendment would be [a] radical
departur[e] from our national narrative thus far.”). Particularly because Wisconsin statutory
law already limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel
Commission, 167 Wis. 2d 205, 482 N.W.2d 121, 129 (Ct. App.1992), enshrining the ban
in the state constitution seems to suggest that the amendment had a moral rather than
practical purpose.

Second, like the constitutional amendment at issue in Romer, Wisconsin’s ban on
same-sex marriage (a) implicates a right “taken for granted by most people”; and (b) is
sweeping in scope, denying same-sex couples hundreds of derivative rights that married
couples have and excluding same-sex couples “from an almost limitless number of
transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.” Id. at 631.
Although there is support for a view that Windsor is controlling in this case, I need
not resolve that question. Even if I assume that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is not
“unusual” in the same sense as the laws at issue in Romer and Windsor, I conclude that
defendants have failed to show that the ban furthers a legitimate state interest.

A. Tradition

Both defendants and amici defend Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage ban on the ground
of tradition. Defendants say that “[t]he traditional view of marriage—between a man and
woman . . . —has been recognized for millennia.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 45. Amici go
even further to state that “virtually all cultures through time” have recognized marriage “as
the union of an opposite-sex couple.” Amici’s Br., dkt. #109, at 3-4.
As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument.
Throughout history, the most “traditional” form of marriage has not been between one man
and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a
tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue. Stephanie Coontz, Marriage,
a History 10 (2005) (“Polygyny, whereby a man can have multiple wives, is the marriage
form found in more places and at more times than any other.”).

Nevertheless, I agree with amici’s more general view that tradition can be important
because it often “reflects lessons of experience.” Amici’s Br., dkt. #109, at 7. For this
reason, courts should take great care when reviewing long-standing laws to consider what
those lessons of experience show. However, it is the reasons for the tradition and not the
tradition itself that may provide justification for a law. Griego, 316 P.3d at 871-72
(“[L]egislation must advance a state interest that is separate and apart from the classification
itself.”); Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 478-79 (“[W]hen tradition is offered to justify preserving a
statutory scheme that has been challenged on equal protection grounds, we must determine
whether the reasons underlying that tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional
requirements.”). Otherwise, the state could justify a law simply by pointing to it. Varnum,
763 N.W.2d at 898 (“When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective
and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed
into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental
objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.”); Hernandez v. Robles, 805
N.Y.S.2d 354, 382 (2005) (Saxe, J., dissenting) (“Employing the reasoning that marriage
must be limited to heterosexuals because that is what the institution has historically been,
merely justifies discrimination with the bare explanation that it has always been this way.”).
Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state’s desire to prohibit
particular conduct. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment);
id. at 601-02 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“‘[P]reserving the traditional institution of marriage’
is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”).

Although many venerable practices are part of American history, there are darker
traditions as well, which later generations have rejected as denials of equality. For example,
“[r]ote reliance on historical exclusion as a justification . . . would have served to justify
slavery, anti-miscegenation laws and segregation.” Hernandez v. Robles, 794 N.Y.S.2d 579,
609 (Sup. Ct. 2005). Similarly, women were deprived of many opportunities, including the
right to vote, for much of this country’s history, often because of “traditional” beliefs about
women’s abilities. E.g., Bradwell v. People of State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130, 141-42 (1872)
(Bradley, J., concurring in the judgment) (“[T]he civil law, as well as nature herself, has
always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and
woman. . . .The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign
offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.”). With respect to marriage in
particular, there was a time when “the very being or legal existence of [a] woman [was]
suspended” when she married. William Blackstone, Commentaries, Vol. I, 442-45 (1765).
In the 1870's, Elizabeth Cady Stanton went so far as to argue that marriage at that time was
“slavery” for women because they were required to forfeit so many rights. Jason Pierceson,
Same-Sex Marriage in the United States 41 (Rowman & Littlefield 2013).

The rejection of these inequalities by later generations shows that sometimes a
tradition may endure because of unexamined assumptions about a particular class of people
rather than because the laws serve the community as a whole. Compare Dronenburg v.
Zech, 741 F.2d 1388, 1398 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“[C]ommon sense and common experience
demonstrate” that gay officers in military “are almost certain to be harmful to morale and
discipline.”), with Jim Garamone, “Don’t Ask, Don't Tell’ Repeal Certified by President
Obama,” American Forces Press Service (July 22, 2011), available at
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=64780 (visited June 6, 2014) (“The
President, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and [the Secretary of Defense] have
certified that the implementation of repeal of [restrictions on gay persons in the military]
is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion
and recruiting and retention of the armed forces.”). For this reason, the Supreme Court has
stated that the “[a]ncient lineage of a legal concept does not give it immunity from attack
for lacking a rational basis,” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 326 (1993), and it has “not
hesitated to strike down an invidious classification even though it had history and tradition
on its side.” Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 71 (1968). Thus, if blind adherence to the past
is the only justification for the law, it must fail. Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L.
Rev. 457, 469 (1897) (“It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that
. . . it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon
which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind
imitation of the past.”).

B. Procreation

Perhaps the most common defense for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is
that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and that same-sex couples cannot
procreate with each other. E.g., Dean, 1992 WL 685364 (ban on same-sex marriage justified
by state’s interest in “fostering, at a socially-approved point in time (i.e. during marriage),
that which is essential to the very survival of the human race, namely, procreation”). See
also Kandu, 315 B.R. at 147; Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77
P.3d 451, 462 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003); Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25; Singer, 522 P.2d at
1195; Baker, 191 N.W.2d at 187. A more recent twist on this argument is that marriage is
needed to help opposite-sex couples procreate “responsibly,” but same-sex couples do not
have the same need. Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15, 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Defendants and amici repeat these arguments.

One problem with the procreation rationale is that defendants do not identify any
reason why denying marriage to same-sex couples will encourage opposite-sex couples to have
children, either “responsibly” or “irresponsibly.” Geiger, 2014 WL 2054264, at *13; Bishop,
962 F. Supp. 2d. at 1291. Defendants say that this argument “misses the point” because
“[t]he focus under rational-basis review is whether the challenged statute rationally supports
a State interest, not whether expanding the class of beneficiaries to marriage would harm the
State’s interest.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 65-66 (citing Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361,
383 (1974) (classification will be upheld under rational basis review if “the inclusion of one
group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would
not”)). In other words, defendants seem to concede that they have no reason to believe that
marriage between same-sex couples will have an adverse effect on procreation between
opposite-sex couples; however, preferential treatment for opposite-sex couples is permissible
because they “need” marriage to better insure that they will stay together after procreation
and same-sex couples do not need such assistance because they do not procreate

As defendants acknowledge implicitly by citing Johnson, 415 U.S. 361, this argument
is contingent on applying the most deferential standard of review. Because I have concluded
that Wisconsin’s laws banning same-sex marriage are subject to heightened scrutiny under
both the due process clause and the equal protection clause, this argument is a nonstarter.
Defendants identify no other situation in which a right could be denied to a class of citizens
simply because of a perception by the state that the class “doesn’t need” the right as much
as another class. Treating such a fundamental right as just another government benefit that
can be offered or withheld at the whim of the state is an indicator either that defendants fail
to appreciate the implications for equal citizenship that the right to marry has or that they
do not see same-sex couples as equal citizens. Cf. John Stuart Mill, “The Subjection of
Women,” included in Classics of Moral and Political Theory 1145 (Michael Morgan ed., 5th
ed. 2011) (“[T]here are many persons for whom it is not enough that the inequality has no
just or legitimate defence; they require to be told what express advantage would be obtained
by abolishing it. To which let me first answer, the advantage of having the most universal
and pervading of all human relations regulated by justice instead of injustice.”).

Further, despite the popularity of this argument in courts in other states, it is difficult
to believe that Wisconsin voters and legislators were willing to go to the great effort of
adopting a constitutional amendment that excluded a class of citizens from marriage simply
because the voters and legislators believed that same-sex couples were so stable and
responsible that marriage was unnecessary for them. Even setting aside the standard of
review, “the breadth of the amendment is so far removed from th[is] particular justificatio[n]
that [I] find it impossible to credit.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 (interest in “conserving
resources to fight discrimination against other groups” did not justify amendment permitting
sexual orientation discrimination).

There is a second problem with the procreation rationale. As other courts have noted,
an argument relying on procreation raises an obvious question: if the reason same-sex
couples cannot marry is that they cannot procreate, then why are opposite-sex couples who
cannot or will not procreate allowed to marry? E.g., Baskin, 2014 WL 1568884, at *3; De
Leon, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 655. Wisconsin law does not restrict the marriages of opposite-sex
couples who are sterile or beyond the age of procreation and it does not require marriage
applicants to make a “procreation promise” in exchange for a license.

Defendants do not address this problem, but amici offer two responses. First, amici
say that “it would be difficult (if not impossible), and certainly inappropriately intrusive, to
determine ahead of time which couples are fertile.” Amici Br., dkt. #109, at 12. Second,
they quote Morrison, 821 N.E.2d at 27, for the proposition that a “reasonable legislative
classification is not to be condemned merely because it is not framed with such mathematical
nicety as to include all within the reason of the classification and to exclude all others.” Id.
at 13. See also Baker, 191 N.W.2d at 187 (making same arguments); Adams, 486 F. Supp.
at 1124-25 (same).

Neither argument is persuasive. First, amici’s argument that it would be “difficult (if
not impossible)” to attempt to determine a couple’s ability or willingness to procreate is
simply inaccurate. Amici identify no reason that the state could not require applicants for
a marriage license to certify that they have the intent to procreate and are not aware of any
impediments to their doing so. In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well. Cf.
Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453 (denying access to contraception on basis of marital status
violates equal protection clause).

Like defendants’ argument regarding “responsible procreation,” amici’s alternative
argument that “mathematical certainty is not required” is contingent on a rational basis
review, which I have rejected. Further, this rationale is suspicious not just because
Wisconsin has failed to ban infertile couples from marrying or to require intrusive tests to
get a marriage license. Rather, it is suspicious because neither defendants nor amici cite any
instances in which Wisconsin has ever taken any legal action to discourage infertile couples
from marrying. There is also little to no stigma attached to childless married couples.
Neither defendants nor amici point to any social opprobrium directed at the many millions
of such couples throughout this country’s history, beginning with America’s first family,
George and Martha Washington, who had no biological children of their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington (visited June 6, 2014). The lack of any
attempts by the state to dissuade infertile persons from marriage is proof that marriage is
about many things, including love, companionship, sexual intimacy, commitment,
responsibility, stability and procreation and that Wisconsin respects the decisions of its
heterosexual citizens to determine for themselves how to define their marriage. If Wisconsin
gives opposite-sex couples that autonomy, it must do the same for same-sex couples.

C. Optimal Child Rearing

Defendants argue that “[s]ocial science data suggests that traditional marriage is
optimal for families.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 52 (citing articles). Amici make a similar
argument that the state has a valid interest in encouraging “the rearing of children by a
mother and father in a family unit once they are born.” Amici Br., dkt. #109, at 13. See
also Kandu, 315 B.R. at 146 (“[T]he promotion of marriage to encourage the maintenance
of stable relationships that facilitate to the maximum extent possible the rearing of children
by both of their biological parents is a legitimate congressional concern.”).

This argument harkens back to objections to interracial marriage made by the state
in Loving. Brief for Respondents at 47–52, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), 1967 WL
113931 (“Inasmuch as we have already noted the higher rate of divorce among the
intermarried, is it not proper to ask, ‘Shall we then add to the number of children who
become the victims of their intermarried parents?’”). Further, it seems to be inconsistent
with defendants’ previous argument. On one hand, defendants argue that same-sex couples
do not need marriage because they can raise children responsibly without it. On the other
hand, defendants argue that same-sex couples should not be raising children at all.
The substance of defendants’ and amici’s argument has been seriously questioned by
both experts and courts. E.g., Golinski., 824 F. Supp. 2d at 991 (citing evidence that “it is
‘beyond scientific dispute’ that same-sex parents are equally capable at parenting as
opposite-sex parents”); Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 1000 (“The evidence does not support a
finding that California has an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents over same-sex
parents. Indeed, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant
to children's developmental outcomes.”); Charlotte Patterson, Children of Lesbian and Gay
Parents: Summary of Research Findings, cited in Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Co 240
(Andrew Sullivan ed., Vintage Book 2004) (finding no adverse effects on children of samesex
parents). However, I need not resolve this sociological debate because, even if I assume
that children fare better with two biological parents, this argument cannot carry the day for
defendants for four reasons.

First, this is another incredibly underinclusive rationale. Defendants point to no other
restrictions that the state places on marriage in an attempt to optimize outcomes for
children. Marriage applicants in Wisconsin do not have to make any showing that they will
make good parents or that they have the financial means to raise a child. A felon, an
alcoholic or even a person with a history of child abuse may obtain a marriage license.
Again, the state’s singular focus on banning same-sex marriage as a method of promoting
good parenting calls into question the sincerity of this asserted interest. Romer, 517 U.S.
at 635.

Second, even if being raised by two biological parents provides the “optimal”
environment on average, this would not necessarily justify a discriminatory law. Under
heightened scrutiny, the government may “not rely on overbroad generalizations about the
different talents, capacities, or preferences of” different groups. Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533
(state violated equal protection clause by denying women admission to military college,
despite evidence that college’s “adversative method” was less suitable for women on average).

Third, with or without marriage rights, some same-sex couples will raise children
together, as they have been doing for many years. Thus, the most immediate effect that the
same-sex marriage ban has on children is to foster less than optimal results for children of
same-sex parents by stigmatizing them and depriving them of the benefits that marriage
could provide. Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 963-64 (“Excluding same-sex couples from civil
marriage . . . prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable
advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will
be reared, educated, and socialized.”) (internal quotations omitted). Cf. Windsor, 133 S.
Ct. at, 2694 (DOMA “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex
couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the
integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their
community and in their daily lives.”). The state’s failure to consider the interests of part of
the very group it says it means to protect is further evidence of the law’s invalidity. Plyler,
457 U.S. at 223-24 (“In determining the rationality of [law restricting some children’s
access to public schools], we may appropriately take into account its costs to the Nation and
to the innocent children who are its victims.”).

Finally, and perhaps most important, defendants do not explain how banning samesex
marriage helps to insure that more children are raised by an opposite-sex couple. I agree
with the courts that see no way that it could. DeBoer, 973 F. Supp. 2d at 770-71; De Leon,
975 F. Supp. 2d at 653; Bourke, 2014 WL 556729, at *8. Defendants do not suggest that
it would be rational to believe that the same-sex marriage ban causes any gay person to
abandon his or her sexual orientation and enter an opposite-sex marriage for the purpose of
procreating or that, even if the ban had such an effect, the situation would be beneficial for
the child in the long run. Although it might be rational to believe that some same-sex
couples would forgo raising children without the benefits and protections afforded by
marriage, that result would not lead to more children being raised by opposite-sex couples;
rather, it simply would mean that fewer children would be born or more would be left
unadopted. Not surprisingly, neither defendants nor amici argue that not being born at all
or being a ward of the state is preferable to being raised by a same-sex couple. Accordingly,
Wisconsin’s ban on marriage between same-sex couples cannot be justified on the ground
that it furthers optimal results for children.

D. Protecting the Institution of Marriage

Both defendants and amici express concerns about the effect that allowing same-sex
couples to marry could have on the institution of marriage as a whole. Defendants say that
“[r]eshaping social norms about marriage could have harmful effects,” such as “shifting the
public understanding of marriage away from a largely child-centric institution to an adultcentric
institution focused on emotion.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102 at 57. They analogize samesex
marriage to no-fault divorce laws, which defendants say led to an increase in divorce rates
and generally made marriages “fragile and often unreliable.” Id. (quoting Sandra Blakeslee,
Unexpected Legacy of Divorce 297 (New York: Hyperion, 2000)). In addition, defendants
quote an article in which the author argues that, if marriage between same-sex couples is
legalized, “[t]he confusion of social roles linked with marriage and parenting would be
tremendous.” Id. at 58 (quoting Lynn Wardle, “Multiply and Replenish”: Considering
Same–Sex Marriage in Light of State Interests in Marital Procreation, 24 Harv. J.L. & Pub.
Pol'y 771, 799 (2001)). Amici make a similar argument, stating that allowing same-sex
marriage risks “psycho-social inversion of the purpose of marriage from promoting children’s
interests to promoting adult arrangements in which children are secondary.” Amici Br., dkt.
#109, at 8.

As an initial matter, it is not clear whether the Supreme Court would view this
interest as even legitimate. In Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693, the Court concluded that
Congress’ stated purpose to “defend” marriage from same-sex couples was evidence that the
purpose of DOMA was to “interfer[e] with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages” and
therefore improper. Similarly, in Loving, 388 U.S. at 8, 11, the Court stated that there was
“patently no legitimate overriding purpose” for a ban on interracial marriage despite an
argument that “the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt” about the effect that
interracial marriage would have on society. Certainly, to the extent that defendants or amici
are concerned about the erosion of strict gender roles in marriage, that is a sexist belief that
the state has no legitimate interest in furthering. Virginia, 518 U.S. at 541.

In addition, this interest suffers from the same problem of underinclusiveness as the
other asserted interests. Two strangers of the opposite sex can marry regardless of their
intentions, without any demonstration or affirmation of the example they will set, even if
they have been previously divorced or have a history of abusing the institution. Similarly,
the no-fault divorce rules that defendants cite actually undermine their argument by showing
that Wisconsin already supports an “adult-centric” notion of marriage to some extent by
allowing easy divorce even when the couple has children. Coontz, supra, at 274 (excluding
same-sex couples from marriage after liberalizing heterosexual marriages and relationships
in other ways is “a case of trying to lock the barn door after the horses have already gone”).
In any event, neither defendants nor amici cite any evidence or even develop a cogent
argument to support their belief that allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow will lead
to the de-valuing of children in marriage or have some other adverse effect on the marriages
of heterosexual couples. Thus, it is doubtful whether defendants’ belief even has a rational
basis. Cf. Doe, 403 F. Supp. at 1205 (Merhige, J., dissenting) (“To suggest, as defendants
do, that the prohibition of homosexual conduct will in some manner encourage new
heterosexual marriages and prevent the dissolution of existing ones is unworthy of judicial
response. In any event, what we know as men is not forgotten as judges— it is difficult to
envision any substantial number of heterosexual marriages being in danger of dissolution
because of the private sexual activities of homosexuals.”).

Under any amount of heightened scrutiny, this interest undoubtedly fails. The
available evidence from other countries and states does not support defendants’ and amici’s
argument. Nussbaum, supra, at 145 (states that allow marriage between same-sex couples
have lower divorce rates than other states); Gerstmann, supra, at 22 (citing findings of
economics professor M.V. Lee Badgett that same-sex partnerships in Europe have not led to
lower rates of marriage, higher rates of divorce or higher rates of nonmarital births as
compared to countries that do not offer legal recognition); William N. Eskridge, Jr. and
Darren Spedale, Gay Marriage: For Better or Worse? 205 (Oxford University Press 2006)
(discussing study finding that percentage of children being raised by two parents in
Scandinavia increased after registered partnership laws took effect).

E. Proceeding with Caution

Defendants say that the “Wisconsin people and their political representatives could
rationally choose to wait and analyze the impact that changing marriage laws have had in
other states before deviating from the status quo.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 46. However,
that argument is simply a restatement of defendants’ argument that they are concerned
about potential adverse effects that marriage between same-sex couples might have, so I need
not consider it again. In itself, a desire to make a class of people wait to exercise
constitutional rights is not a legitimate interest. Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. 526,
532–533 (1963) (“The basic guarantees of our Constitution are warrants for the here and
now and, unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason, they are to be promptly
fulfilled.”). See also Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail (“For years now
I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity.
This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’”); Evan Wolfson, Why Marriage Matters 121
(Simon & Schuster 2004) (quoting state senator’s statement after Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d
941) (“Goodridge is ahead of our mainstream culture and our own sensibilities [but] my
level of comfort is not the appropriate monitor of the Constitutional rights of our citizens.
. . . [The Constitution] has always required us to reach beyond our moral and emotional

F. Slippery Slope

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

I make three observations in response to defendants’ concern about the slippery slope.

First, and most important, the task of this court is to address the claim presented and not
to engage in speculation about issues not raised that may or may not arise at some later time
in another case. Socha v. Pollard, 621 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2010) (“If [an] order
represents a mere advisory opinion not addressed to resolving a ‘case or controversy,’ then
it marks an attempted exercise of judicial authority beyond constitutional bounds.”). Thus,
the important question for this case is not whether another individual’s marriage claim may
be analogous to plaintiffs’ claim, but whether plaintiffs’ claim is like the claims raised in cases
such as Loving, Zablocki, Turner and Windsor. I have concluded that it is. When the
Supreme Court struck down the marriage restrictions in those other cases, it did not engage
in hypothetical discussions about what might come next. See also Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d
259, 287-88 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (Collester, J., dissenting) (“It is . . . unnecessary for us
to consider here the question of the constitutional rights of polygamists to marry persons of
their choosing. . . . One issue of fundamental constitutional rights is enough for now.”).

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net. A more
fundamental point is that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is different from other
marriage restrictions because it completely excludes gay persons from participating in the
institution of marriage in any meaningful sense. In other words, gay persons simply are
asking for the right to marry someone. With the obvious exception of minors, no other class
is being denied this right. As in Romer, plaintiffs are not asking for “special rights”; they are
asking only for the rights that every adult already has.

Third, opponents of marriage between same-sex couples have been raising concerns
about the slippery slope for many years, but these concerns have not proved well-founded.
Again, there is no evidence from Europe that lifting the restriction on same-sex marriage has
had an effect on other marriage restrictions related to age, consanguinity or number of
partners. Eskridge and Spedale, supra, at 40. Similarly, in Vermont and Massachusetts, the
first states to give legal recognition to same-sex couples, there has been no movement toward
polygamy or incest. Further, I am aware of no court that even has questioned the validity
of those restrictions. Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 434 n.52 (rejecting comparison to
polygamy and incest); Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 969 n.34 (2003) (same). Accordingly, this
interest, like all the others asserted by defendants and amici, does not provide a legitimate
basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.


In 1954, in what likely was one of the first cases explicitly addressing issues involving
gay persons, a federal district court denied a claim involving censorship of a gay news
magazine, stating that the court “rejected” the “suggestion that homosexuals should be
recognized as a segment of our people.” Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price, Courting Justice 33
(Basic Books 2002) (quoting unpublished decision in ONE, Inc. v. Oleson). In the decades
that followed, both courts and the public began to better appreciate that the guarantees of
liberty and equality in the Constitution should not be denied because of an individual’s
sexual orientation. Despite these advances, marriage equality for same-sex couples remained
elusive. Court rulings in favor of same-sex couples were rare and, even when achieved, they
tended to generate strong backlash. Klarman, supra, at 58, 113 (noting that, after decision
favorable to same-sex marriage in Baehr, 852 P.2d 44, Congress enacted Defense of Marriage
Act and many states passed similar laws; in 2004, after Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d 941, eleven
states passed constitutional amendments banning marriage between same-sex couples).

In my view, that initial resistance is not proof of the lack of merit of those couples’
claims. Rather, it is evidence of Justice Cardozo’s statement (quoted by Justice Ginsburg
during her confirmation hearing) that “[j]ustice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be
wooed by slow advances.” Editorial, “Ginsburg’s Thoughtful Caution,” Chicago Tribune
(July 22, 1993), available at 1993 WLNR 4096678. It took the Supreme Court nearly a
century after the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to hold that racial segregation violates
the Constitution, a view that seems obvious today. It took another 12 years for the Court
to strike down anti-miscegenation laws. (Although the Court had the opportunity to review
Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law shortly after Brown, the Court declined to do so at the
time, Naim v. Naim, 350 U.S. 985 (1956) (dismissing appeal), leading some to speculate
that the Court believed that the issue was still too controversial. Eskridge and Spedale,
supra, at 235.) It took longer still for courts to begin to remedy the country’s “long and
unfortunate history of sex discrimination.” Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 684.

In light of Windsor and the many decisions that have invalidated restrictions on
same-sex marriage since Windsor, it appears that courts are moving toward a consensus that
it is time to embrace full legal equality for gay and lesbian citizens. Perhaps it is no
coincidence that these decisions are coming at a time when public opinion is moving quickly
in the direction of support for same-sex marriage. Compare Richard A. Posner, Should
There Be Homosexual Marriage? And If So, Who Should Decide? 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1578,
1585 (1997) (“Public opinion may change . . . but at present it is too firmly against same-sex
marriage for the courts to act.”), with Richard A. Posner, “Homosexual Marriage—Posner,”
The Becker-Posner Blog (May 13, 2012) (“[T]he only remaining basis for opposition to
homosexual marriage . . . is religious. . . . But whatever the [religious objections are], the
United States is not a theocracy and should hesitate to enact laws that serve religious rather
than pragmatic secular aims.”).

Citing these changing public attitudes, defendants seem to suggest that this case is not
necessary because a majority of Wisconsin citizens will soon favor same-sex marriage, if they
do not already. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 40 (citing article by Nate Silver predicting that 64%
of Wisconsinites will favor same-sex marriage by 2020). Perhaps it is true that the
Wisconsin legislature and voters would choose to repeal the marriage amendment and
amend the statutory marriage laws to be inclusive of same-sex couples at some point in the
future. Perhaps it is also true that, if the courts had refused to act in the 1950s and 1960s,
eventually all states would have voted to end segregation and repeal anti-miscegenation laws.
Regardless, a district court may not abstain from deciding a case because of a possibility that
the issues raised in the case could be resolved in some other way at some other time.
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States,424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)
(federal courts have “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise jurisdiction in cases properly
before them).

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.



1. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen and
Oskar Anderson, dkt. #66, is DENIED.

2. The motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs Virginia Wolf, Carol
Schumacher, Kami Young, Karina Willes, Roy Badger, Garth Wangemann, Charvonne
Kemp, Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf, Katharina Heyning, Salud Garcia, Pamela Kleiss,
William Hurtubise, Leslie Palmer, Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden, dkt. #70 is

3. It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.

4. Plaintiffs may have until June 16, 2014, to submit a proposed injunction that
complies with the requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) to “describe in reasonable
detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required.” In particular, plaintiffs should identify what
they want each named defendant to do or be enjoined from doing. Defendants may have one
week from the date plaintiffs file their proposed injunction to file an opposition. If
defendants file an opposition, plaintiffs may have one week from that date to file a reply in
support of their proposed injunction.

5. I will address defendants’ pending motion to stay the injunction after the parties
have had an opportunity to file materials related to the proposed injunction. If the parties
wish, they may have until June 16, 2014, to supplement their materials related to that
motion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Geiger v. Kitzhaber not to grant a stay
in that case.

Entered this 6th day of June, 2014.

District Judge


  1. "Marriage is tied to our sense of self, personal autonomy and public dignity. And perhaps more than any other endeavor, we view marriage as essential to the pursuit of happiness, one of the inalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence. Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, Case for Marriage 2 (Broadway Books 2000) (stating that 93% of Americans rate 'having a happy marriage' as one of their most important goals, an ever higher percentage than 'being in good health')."

    I take back everything I have ever said about courts quoting Maggie Gallagher. Quote away Judicial System.

  2. "Further, although Windsor involved a federal law rather than a state law, I am not aware of any other case in which the Court applied equal protection principles differently to state and federal government.Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976) ('Equal protection analysis [with respect to the federal government] in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment [with respect to the states.]'). This may be the reason why all federal courts reviewing a ban on same-sex marriage since Windsor have concluded that the ban is unconstitutional."

    While the Supreme Court may be moving away from Buckley v. Valeo, with decisions like Davis v. FEC, Citizens United, and McCutcheon v. FEC, Judge Crabb found a novel way of keeping it relevant. Beautiful!