RICHARD L. YOUNG, Chief Judge.
The court has before it three cases, Baskin v. Bogan, Fujii v. Pence, and Lee v. Pence. All three allege that Indiana Code Section 31-11-1-1 ("Section 31-11-1-1"), which defines marriage as between one man and one woman and voids marriages between same-sex persons, is facially unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in the Baskin and Fujii cases challenge the entirety of Section 31-11-1-1, while Plaintiffs in the Lee case challenge only Section 31-11-1-1(b). Plaintiffs, in all three cases, allege that Section 31-11-1-1 violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In each case, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the respective Defendants. Also in each case, Plaintiffs and Defendants have moved for summary judgment, agreeing that there are no issues of material
The court considers the case of Baskin v. Bogan to be the lead case and thus will recite only those facts relevant to that dispute. In Baskin v. Bogan, Plaintiffs are comprised of five same-sex couples and three minor children of two of the couples. (Amended Complaint ¶ 1, Filing No. 30).
Plaintiffs challenge Section 31-11-1-1, which states:
In addition, Plaintiffs broadly challenge other Indiana statutes that have the effect of carrying out the marriage ban. (hereinafter, collectively, with Section 31-11-1-1, referred to as "Indiana's marriage laws"). On April 10, 2014, the court granted a temporary restraining order (Filing No. 51) prohibiting the Baskin Defendants from enforcing Section B against Nikole Quasney and Amy Sandler. The parties in Baskin agreed to fully brief their motions for preliminary injunction and summary judgments for a combined hearing held on May 2, 2014. The court granted a preliminary injunction extending the temporary restraining order. (Filing No. 65). The court now considers the cross motions for summary judgment in the three cases.
In order to marry in the State of Indiana, a couple must apply for and be issued a marriage license. See Ind.Code § 31-11-4-1. The couple need not be residents of the state. See Ind.Code § 31-11-4-3. However, the two individuals must be at least eighteen years of age or meet certain exceptions. See Ind.Code § 31-11-1-4; Ind.Code § 31-11-1-5. An application for a marriage license must include information such as full name, birthplace, residence, age, and information about each person's parents. See Ind.Code § 31-11-4-4.
The marriage license serves as the legal authority to solemnize a marriage. See Ind.Code § 31-11-4-14. The marriage may be solemnized by religious or non-religious figures. See Ind.Code § 31-11-6-1. If an individual attempts to solemnize a marriage in violation of Indiana Code Chapter 31-11-1, which includes same-sex marriages, then that person has committed a Class B Misdemeanor. See Ind.Code § 31-11-11-7.
In addition to prohibiting same-sex marriages, Indiana prohibits bigamous marriages and marriages between relatives more closely related than second cousins unless they are first cousins over the age of sixty-five. See Ind.Code § 31-11-1-2 (cousins); see Ind.Code § 31-11-1-3 (polygamy). Nevertheless, when evaluating the legality of marriages, the Indiana Supreme Court found that "the presumption in favor of matrimony is one of the strongest known to law." Teter v. Teter, 101 Ind. 129, 131-32 (Ind.1885). In general, Indiana recognizes out-of-state marriages that were valid in the location performed. Bolkovac v. State, 229 Ind. 294, 98 N.E.2d 250, 254 (1951) ("[t]he validity of a marriage depends upon the law of the place where it occurs.").
The purpose of summary judgment is to "pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party on the particular issue. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
On a motion for summary judgment, the burden rests with the moving party to demonstrate "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). After the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue for trial, the responsibility shifts to the non-movant to "go beyond the pleadings" and point to evidence of a genuine factual dispute precluding summary judgment. Id. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. "If the non-movant does not come forward with evidence that would reasonably permit the finder of fact to find in her favor on a material question, then the court must enter summary judgment against her." Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir.1994) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 585-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24,
Prior to discussing the merits of the summary judgment motions, the court must decide several threshold issues. First, the court must determine whether Defendants Attorney General Zoeller, Governor Pence, and the Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Revenue ("Department of Revenue Commissioner") are proper parties, and second, whether Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972) bars the present lawsuit.
Under the Eleventh Amendment, a citizen cannot sue their state in federal court unless the state consents. However, the Supreme Court created an important exception to that immunity in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). Under that doctrine, "a private party can sue a state officer in his or her official capacity to enjoin prospective action that would violate federal law." Ameritech Corp. v. McCann, 297 F.3d 582, 585-86 (7th Cir.2002)(quoting Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel, 187 F.3d 609, 613 (7th Cir.1999)). Because Plaintiffs seek an injunction to enjoin actions which violate federal law, Ex parte Young applies. The question here rather, is who is a proper defendant?
The proper defendants are those who bear "`legal responsibility for the flaws [plaintiffs] perceive in the system' and not one[s] from whom they `could not ask anything ... that could conceivably help their cause.'" Sweeney v. Daniels, No. 2:12-cv81-PPS/PRC, 2013 WL 209047, *3 (N.D.Ind. Jan. 17, 2013) (quoting Hearne v. Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 770, 777 (7th Cir.1999)). Defendants Zoeller, Pence, and the Department of Revenue Commissioner assert that they are not the proper parties. For the reasons explained below, the court agrees with Governor Pence and disagrees with Attorney General Zoeller and the Department of Revenue Commissioner.
Defendant Zoeller, sued in Baskin v. Bogan, asserts that he neither has the authority to enforce nor has any other role respecting Section 31-11-1-1 as the Attorney General. However, the Baskin Plaintiffs' complaint broadly challenges Section 31-11-1-1 and the State's other laws precluding such marriages, and requests that the court declare Section 31-11-1-1 "and all other sources of Indiana law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples or prevent recognition of their marriages" unconstitutional. (Amended Complaint §§ 3, 80, Filing No. 30, at ECF p. 2, 26). This relief would encompass such criminal statutes as listed above in Part I.B.
The Attorney General has the broad authority to assist in the prosecution of any offense if he decides that it is in the public interest. See Ind.Code. § 4-6-1-6. Noting this broad authority, the court has previously found that the Attorney General is a proper party when challenging statutes regarding abortion. See Arnold v. Sendak, 416 F.Supp. 22, 23 (S.D.Ind.1976), aff'd, 429 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 476, 50 L.Ed.2d 579 (1976) (finding "[t]he Attorney General thus has broad powers in the enforcement of criminal laws of the state, and is accordingly a proper defendant."); see also Gary-Northwest Indiana Women's Services, Inc. v. Bowen, 496 F.Supp. 894 (N.D.Ind.1980) (attorney general as a party to a law challenging statute criminalizing abortion). Although Section 31-11-1-1 does not specifically define criminal penalties, Indiana has criminal provisions in place to prevent individuals from marrying in violation of it. See Ind.Code §§ 31-11-11-7;
Governor Pence is sued in the Fujii and Lee cases. As the court found in Love v. Pence, another case challenging the constitutionality of Section 31-11-1-1, the Governor is not a proper party because the Plaintiffs' injuries are not fairly traceable to him and cannot be redressed by him. (Love v. Pence, ___ F.Supp.3d___, No. 4:14-cv-15-RLY-TAB, Filing No. 32, 2014 WL 2881569 (S.D.Ind. June 24, 2014)). Therefore, the court
The Fujii Plaintiffs also brought suit against the Department of Revenue Commissioner. The Commissioner claims he is the wrong party because any harms caused by him do not constitute a concrete injury. The court disagrees and finds that Plaintiffs have alleged a concrete injury by having to fill out three federal tax returns in order to file separate returns for Indiana. See e.g. Harris v. City of Zion, Lake County, Ill., 927 F.2d 1401, 1406 (7th Cir.1991) ("[a]n identifiable trifle is enough for standing to fight out a question of principle; the trifle is the basis for standing and the principle supplies the motivation."). The court finds that this is an identifiable trifle. Therefore, the court
Defendants argue that this case is barred by Baker v. Nelson. In Baker, the United States Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from the Supreme Court of Minnesota for want of a substantial federal question. 409 U.S. at 810, 93 S.Ct. 37. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that: (1) the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages did not mean same-sex marriages are authorized, and (2) state authorization of same-sex marriages is not required by the United States Constitution. Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), aff'd, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972).
The parties agree that the Supreme Court's ruling has the effect of a ruling on the merits. See Ill. Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 182-83, 99 S.Ct. 983, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) ("a summary disposition affirms only the judgment of the court below, and no more may be read into [the] action than was essential to sustain the judgment."). Defendants contend that this case raises the precise issue addressed by Baker and thus binds the court to find in Defendants' favor. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344-45, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975) (quotation omitted) ("the lower courts are bound ... until such time as the [Supreme] Court tells them that they are not.").
The court agrees that the issue of whether same-sex couples may be constitutionally prohibited from marrying is the exact issue presented in Baker. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court created an important exception that "when doctrinal developments indicate," lower courts need not
The Supreme Court decided Baker at a different time in the country's equal protection jurisprudence. The following are examples of the jurisprudence at and around the time of Baker. The Court struck down a law for discriminating on the basis of gender for the first time only one year before Baker. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971). Moreover, at the time Baker was decided, the Court had not yet recognized gender as a quasi-suspect classification. Regarding homosexuality, merely four years after Baker, the Supreme Court granted a summary affirmance in a case challenging the constitutionality of the criminalization of sodomy for homosexuals. Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney for City of Richmond, 425 U.S. 901, 96 S.Ct. 1489, 47 L.Ed.2d 751 (1976). Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's finding that "[i]t is enough for upholding the legislation that the conduct is likely to end in a contribution to moral delinquency." Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney for City of Richmond, 403 F.Supp. 1199, 1202 (E.D.Va.1975), aff'd 425 U.S. 901, 96 S.Ct. 1489, 47 L.Ed.2d 751 (1976). Nine years later in 1985, the Eleventh Circuit found that particular summary affirmance was no longer binding. Hardwick v. Bowers, 760 F.2d 1202 (11th Cir.1985), rev'd 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986). However, on review, the Supreme Court held that states were permitted to criminalize private, consensual sex between adults of the same-sex based merely on moral disapproval. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986), overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578, 123 S.Ct. 2472. For ten more years, states were free to legislate against homosexuals based merely on the majority's disapproval of such conduct.
Then in 1996, the Supreme Court decided Romer — the first case that clearly shows a change in direction away from Baker. The Court held that an amendment to the Colorado Constitution, specifically depriving homosexual persons from the protection of anti-discrimination measures, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Romer, 517 U.S. at 635, 116 S.Ct. 1620. The next change occurred in 2003 with Lawrence when the Supreme Court overruled Bowers, finding that the promotion of morality is not a legitimate state interest under the Equal Protection Clause and the state may not criminalize sodomy between individuals of the same sex. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582, 123 S.Ct. 2472.
Finally, in the last year even more has changed in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence shedding any doubt regarding the effect of Baker. The Supreme Court granted certiorari for two cases involving the constitutionality of laws adversely affecting individuals based on sexual orientation. First, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as "only a legal union between one man and one woman." 133 S.Ct. at 2694 (quoting 1 U.S.C. § 7). The Court noted that the differentiation within a state caused by DOMA "demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects." Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694. Additionally, the Court found that the purpose of DOMA "is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as
The court acknowledges that this conclusion is shared with all other district courts that have considered the issue post — Windsor. See Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 988-92 (W.D.Wisc.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 418-19, No. 1:13-cv-1861, 2014 WL 2058105, **4-6 (M.D.Penn. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1133 n. 1, No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC, 2014 WL 2054264, *1 n. 1 (D.Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, ___ - ___, 1:13-cv-482-CWD, 2014 WL 1909999, **7-10 (D.Idaho May 13, 2013); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757, 773 n. 6 (E.D.Mich.2014); DeLeon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632, 648 (W.D.Tex.2014) (order granting preliminary injunction); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F.Supp.2d 456, 469-70 (E.D.Va.2014); Bishop v. U.S. ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1274-77 (N.D.Okla.2014); McGee v. Cole, 993 F.Supp.2d 639, 649-52, No. 3:13-cv24068, 2014 WL 321122, **8-10 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 29, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1195 (D.Utah 2013). Finding that Baker does not bar the present action, the court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs' claims.
As the court has recognized before, marriage and domestic relations are traditionally left to the states; however, the restrictions put in place by the state must comply with the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process. See Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2691 (citing Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967)). Plaintiffs assert that Indiana's marriage laws violate those guarantees.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. The purpose of the Due Process Clause is to "protect[] those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty...." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted). Because such rights are so important, "an individual's fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote." DeLeon, 975 F.Supp.2d at 657 (citing W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943)). Plaintiffs assert that the State of Indiana impedes upon their fundamental right to marry, and thus, violates the Due Process Clause.
Defendants, relying on Glucksberg, argue that the fundamental right to marry should be limited to its traditional definition of one man and one woman because fundamental rights are based in history. The concept of same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in history; thus, according to Defendants, the Plaintiffs are asking the court to recognize a new fundamental right. Plaintiffs counter that Defendants' reliance on Glucksberg is mistaken because the Supreme Court has repeatedly defined the fundamental right to marry in broad terms.
The court agrees with Plaintiffs. "Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights." In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, 430 (2008) (superseded by constitutional amendment). In fact, "the history of our Constitution... is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996). The reasoning in Henry v. Himes is particularly persuasive on this point:
___ F.Supp.3d ___,___, No. 1:14-cv-129, 2014 WL 1418395, *7 (S.D.Ohio Apr. 14, 2014) (emphasis added) (citing Loving, 388 U.S. at 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817; Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94-96, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 383-86, 98 S.Ct. 673).
The court finds Loving v. Virginia best illustrates that concept. In that case, the Court held that Virginia's ban on interracial marriage violated the plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process Clause. 388 U.S.
Unfortunately, the courts have failed to recognize the breadth of our Due Process rights before in cases such as Bowers, 478 U.S. at 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841, overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578, 123 S.Ct. 2472. There, the court narrowly framed the issue as "whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy...." Id. at 190, 106 S.Ct. 2841. Not surprisingly, with the issue framed so narrowly and applying only to a small classification of people, the Court found that there was no fundamental right at issue because our history and tradition proscribed such conduct. Id. at 192-94, 106 S.Ct. 2841. In 2003, the Supreme Court recognized its error and reversed course. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (finding that the Bowers Court's statement of the issue "discloses the Court's own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty interest at stake."). The court found that the sodomy laws violated plaintiffs' Due Process right to engage in such conduct and intruded into "the personal and private life of the individual." Id. at 578, 123 S.Ct. 2472. Notably, the Court did not limit the right to a classification of certain people who had historical access to that right.
Here, Plaintiffs are not asking the court to recognize a new right; but rather, "[t]hey seek `simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.'" Bostic, 970 F.Supp.2d at 472 (quoting Kitchen, 961 F.Supp.2d at 1202-03). The courts have routinely protected the choices and circumstances defining sexuality, family, marriage, and procreation. As the Supreme Court found in Windsor, "[m]arriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits," and "[p]rivate, consensual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex ... can form `but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.'" Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693 (quoting Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567, 123 S.Ct. 2472). The court concludes that the right to marry should not be interpreted as narrowly as Defendants urge, but rather encompasses the ability of same-sex couples to marry.
The level of scrutiny describes how in depth the court must review the Defendants' proffered reasons for a law. Scrutiny ranges from rational basis (the most deferential to the State) to strict scrutiny (the least deferential to the State). Defendants agree that if the court finds that the fundamental right to marry encompasses same-sex marriages, then heightened scrutiny is appropriate. (Transcript 40:9-17). "When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently
For strict scrutiny to be appropriate, the court must find: (1) there is a fundamental right, and (2) the classification significantly interferes with the exercise of that right. Id. First, as stated above, the court finds that the fundamental right to marry includes the right of the individual to marry a person of the same sex. Second, Section 31-11-1-1 significantly interferes with that right because it completely bans the Plaintiffs from marrying that one person of their choosing. Therefore, Indiana's marriage laws are subject to strict scrutiny. See Bostic, 970 F.Supp.2d at 473.
Section 31-11-1-1, classifying same-sex couples, "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, 98 S.Ct. 673. Here, Defendants proffer that the state's interest in conferring the special benefit of civil marriage to only one man and one woman is justified by its interest in encouraging the couple to stay together for the sake of any unintended children that their sexual union may create. The court does not weigh whether or not this is a sufficiently important interest, but will assume that it is.
Defendants have failed to show that the law is "closely tailored" to that interest. Indiana's marriage laws are both over — and under-inclusive. The marriage laws are under-inclusive because they only prevent one subset of couples, those who cannot naturally conceive children, from marrying. For example, the State's laws do not consider those post-menopausal women, infertile couples, or couples that do not wish to have children. Additionally, Indiana specifically allows first cousins to marry once they reach the age that procreation is not a realistic possibility. See Ind.Code § 31-11-1-2. On the other hand, Indiana's marriage laws are over-inclusive in that they prohibit some opposite-sex couples, who can naturally and unintentionally procreate, from marriage. For example, relatives closer in degree than second cousins can naturally and unintentionally procreate; however, they still may not marry.
The state, by excluding same-sex couples from marriage, violates Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause. See Wolf, 986 F.Supp.2d at 1006-07; Lee v. Orr, No. 1:13-cv-08719, 2014 WL 683680, *2 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) ("This Court has no trepidation that marriage is a fundamental right to be equally enjoyed by all individuals of consenting age regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation."); Whitewood, 992 F.Supp.2d at 422-24, 2014 WL 2058105 at **8-9; Latta, ___ F.Supp.3d at___,
Plaintiffs also argue that Section 31-11-1-1 violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause "commands that no State shall `deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) (quoting U.S. Const., amend. XIV., § 1). The clause must take into account the fact that governments must draw lines between people and groups. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620.
"[I]f a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, [the court] will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end." Romer, 517 U.S. at 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620. The court must "insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained." Id. at 632, 116 S.Ct. 1620. This is to ensure that the classification was not enacted for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. See id. at 633, 116 S.Ct. 1620. If a law "impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class" then the court applies strict scrutiny. See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 383, 98 S.Ct. 673. To survive strict scrutiny, Indiana must show that the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. See id. at 388, 98 S.Ct. 673. As indicated in Part V.A. above, the court finds that the law impermissibly interferes with a fundamental right, and Defendants failed to satisfy strict scrutiny. Nevertheless, the court will evaluate the Equal Protection claim independent from that conclusion and as an alternative reason to find the marriage law unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs argue that Indiana's marriage laws discriminate against individuals on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
According to Plaintiffs, Indiana's marriage laws discriminate against them based on their gender. For example, if Rae Baskin was a man she would be allowed to marry Esther Fuller; however, because she is a female, she cannot marry Esther. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege the law enforces sex stereotypes, requiring men and women to adhere to traditional marital roles. See e.g., J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). Defendants respond that the laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender because the laws do not affect any gender disproportionately. Plaintiffs respond that a mere equal application of the law was rejected by the Court in Loving.
The court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' arguments and finds Loving to be distinguishable on this point. Unlike Loving, where the court found evidence of an invidious racial discrimination, the court finds no evidence of an invidious gender-based discrimination here. See Geiger, 994 F.Supp.2d at 1139-40, 2014 WL 2054264 at *7. Moreover, there is no evidence that the purpose of the marriage laws is to ratify a stereotype about the relative abilities of men and women or to impose traditional gender roles on individuals.
Plaintiffs also argue that Indiana's marriage laws classify individuals based on their sexual orientation, because they prevent all same-sex couples from marrying the person of their choice. Defendants respond that the marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples because they may marry just like opposite-sex couples may marry; the law merely impacts them differently. The court rejects this notion. As the court stated above, the right to marry is about the ability to form a partnership, hopefully lasting a lifetime, with that one special person of your choosing. Additionally, although Indiana previously defined marriage in this manner, the title of Section 31-11-1-1 — "Same sex marriages prohibited" — makes clear that the law was reaffirmed in 1997 not to define marriage but to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying the individual of their choice. Thus, the court finds that Indiana's marriage laws discriminate based on sexual orientation.
The Seventh Circuit applies rational basis review in cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation. See Schroeder v. Hamilton Sch. Dist., 282 F.3d 946, 950-51 (7th Cir.2002) ("Homosexuals are not entitled to any heightened protection under the Constitution."). The Seventh Circuit relied on Bowers and Romer for this conclusion. Plaintiffs argue that since Bowers has since been overruled, the court is no longer bound by Schroeder. The court disagrees and believes it is bound to apply rational basis because one of the cases the Court relied on in Schroeder, e.g. Romer, is still valid law. The court agrees with Plaintiffs that it is likely time to reconsider this issue, especially in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 481 (9th Cir.2014) (interpreting Windsor to mean that gay and lesbian persons constitute a suspect class). However, the court will leave that decision to the Seventh Circuit, where this case will surely be headed. The court will, therefore, apply rational basis review.
Defendants rely on Johnson v. Robison for the proposition that "when ... the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute's classification of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries is invidiously discriminatory." 415 U.S. 361, 383, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974). According to Defendants, Johnson means that they must only show that there is a rational reason to provide the right of marriage to opposite-sex couples, not that there is a rational basis to exclude. In essence, Defendants assert that the opposite-sex couples have distinguishing characteristics, the ability to naturally and unintentionally procreate as a couple, that allow the State to treat them differently from same-sex couples.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, allege that the primary purpose of the statute is to exclude same-sex couples from marrying and thus the Defendants must show a rational basis to exclude them. The court agrees with Plaintiffs. According to Plaintiffs, the purpose is evident by the timing of the statute, which was passed in an emergency session near the time that DOMA was passed and immediately after and in response to a Hawaiian court's pronouncement in Baehr v. Miike, CIV. No. 91-1394, 1996 WL 694235 (Haw.Cir.Ct. Dec. 3, 1996), aff'd 87 Haw. 34, 950 P.2d 1234 (1997), that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. See Family Law — Marriage — Same Sex Marriages Void,
The Johnson case concerned a challenge brought by a conscientious objector seeking to declare the educational benefits under the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds. 415 U.S. at 364, 94 S.Ct. 1160. In reviewing whether or not the classification was arbitrary, the Court looked to the purpose of that Act and found that the legislative objective was to (1) make serving in the Armed Forces more attractive and (2) assist those who served on active duty in the Armed Forces in "readjusting" to civilian life. See id. at 376-377, 94 S.Ct. 1160. The Court found that conscientious objectors were excluded from the benefits that were offered to the veterans because the benefits could not make service more attractive to a conscientious objector and the need to readjust was absent. See id. The Supreme Court found that the two groups were not similarly situated and thus, Congress was justified in making that classification. See id. at 382-83, 94 S.Ct. 1160.
The court agrees with Plaintiffs that they are similarly situated in all relevant aspects to opposite-sex couples for the purposes of marriage. Also of great importance is the fact that unlike the statute at issue in Johnson, "[m]arriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits." Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693. In fact having the status of "married" comes with hundreds of rights and responsibilities under Indiana and federal law. See 614 Reasons Why Marriage Equality Matters in Indiana, Fujii, Filing No. 46-2. As the court in Kitchen stated in analyzing the Equal Protection claim before it:
961 F.Supp.2d at 1210-11 (reference and footnote added). Like Utah's laws, the effect of Indiana's marriage laws is to exclude certain people from marrying that one special person of their choosing. This is evident by the title of Section 31-11-1-1 — "Same sex marriages prohibited." Consequently, the question is whether it is rational to treat same-sex couples differently by excluding them from marriage and the hundreds of rights that come along with that marriage. See e.g. City of Cleburne, Tex., 473 U.S. at 449, 105 S.Ct. 3249.
The court finds that there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples. The purpose of marriage — to keep the couple together for the sake of their children — is served by marriage regardless of the sexes of the spouses. In order to fit under Johnson's rationale, Defendants point to the one extremely limited difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, the ability of the couple to naturally and unintentionally procreate, as justification to deny same-sex couples a vast array of rights. The connection between these rights and responsibilities and the ability to conceive unintentionally is too attenuated to support such a broad prohibition. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 635, 116 S.Ct. 1620. Furthermore, the exclusion has no effect on opposite-sex couples and whether they have children or stay together for those children. Defendants proffer no reason why excluding same-sex couples from marriage benefits opposite-sex couples. The court concludes that there simply is no rational link between the two. See Tanco, 7 F.Supp.3d at 768-69, 2014 WL 997525 at *6; see also Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1290-93 (finding there is no rational link between excluding same-sex marriages and "steering `naturally procreative' relationships into marriage, in order to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and reduce economic burdens on the State"); see also DeBoer, 973 F.Supp.2d at 771-72 (noting that prohibiting same-sex marriages "does not stop [gay men and lesbian women] from forming families and raising children. Nor does prohibiting same-sex marriage increase the number of heterosexual marriages or the number of children raised by heterosexual parents.").
Defendants concede that whether Indiana can refuse to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages turns entirely on whether Indiana may enforce Section A. Because the court finds that Indiana may not exclude same-sex couples from marriage, the court also finds it cannot refuse to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages. See e.g. Loving, 388 U.S. at 4, 11, 87 S.Ct. 1817. Nevertheless, the court finds that Section B violates the Equal Protection Clause independent of its decision regarding Section A.
The parties agree that out-of-state, same-sex marriages are treated differently than out-of-state, opposite-sex marriages. Thus, the question is whether that difference violates the Equal Protection Clause. In Windsor, the Supreme Court concluded that by treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples, Section 3 of DOMA "violate[d] basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government." 133 S.Ct. at 2693. The Eastern District of Kentucky found two guiding principles from Windsor that strongly suggest the result here. See Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F.Supp.2d 542, 551, No. 3:13-cv-750-H, 2014 WL 556729, *7 (W.D.Ky. Feb. 12, 2014). First, the court should look to the actual purpose of the
The purpose of the law is to prevent the recognition of same-sex marriage in Indiana, which Plaintiffs assert was motivated by animus. If Section 31-11-1-1 was in fact motivated by animus, it violates the principles of the Equal Protection Clause. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 633-35, 116 S.Ct. 1620 ("[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate state interest.") (emphasis in original) (quoting Dep't of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534, 93 S.Ct. 2821, 37 L.Ed.2d 782 (1973)). Section 31-11-1-1, like DOMA, was passed during the time that Hawaii courts were deciding whether the United States Constitution required it to allow same-sex marriages. According to the bill's author, his "intent [was] to clarify present Indiana law and strengthen it." Barb Albert, Same-sex Marriage Takes Hit in Senate, Indianapolis Star, Feb. 11, 1997, at B2. He did not see the statute as denying rights, because he considered marriage to be a privilege, rather than a right. Id. Opponents of the bill saw it as "inflaming the biases and prejudices of individuals," "thumbing your nose" at the Constitution, and "legislat[ing] hate." Id.; see also Stuart A. Hirsch, Ban on Gay Marriages to go to Governor, Indianapolis Star, Apr. 26, 1997, at B 1.
Additionally, Section 31-11-1-1 is an unusual law for Indiana to pass. As described above, in Indiana "[t]he validity of a marriage depends upon the law of the place where it occurs." This includes recognizing marriages between first cousins despite the fact that they cannot marry in Indiana unless they are over 65 years of age. See Mason v. Mason, 775 N.E.2d 706, 709 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). The State of Indiana chose one group to single out for disparate treatment. The State's laws place same-sex marriages in a second class category, unlike other marriages performed in other states. Thus, like the Supreme Court in Windsor, this court can conclude that this law is motivated by animus, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Even if it were not, the law fails rational basis review. Defendants proffer that the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages because it conflicts with the State's philosophy of marriage — that is that marriage is to ameliorate the consequences of unintended children. Recognizing the valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, however, has no link whatsoever to whether opposite-sex couples have children or stay together for those children. Thus, there is no rational basis to refuse recognition and void out-of-state, same-sex marriages. Therefore, Part B violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. See Tanco v. Haslam, 7 F.Supp.3d 759, No. 3:13-cv-01159, 2014 WL 997525 (M.D.Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014); see also Bourke, 996 F.Supp.2d 542, 2014 WL 556729.
The court has never witnessed a phenomenon throughout the federal court system as is presented with this issue. In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions — laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based
Therefore, the court finds as follows:
Pursuant to the reasoning contained above, the court
Having found that Indiana Code § 31-11-1-1 and the laws in place enforcing
Specifically, this permanent injunction requires the following, and the court
