Amicus Brief of PFLAG

Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 1 of 38
Total Pages:(1 of 39)
Case Nos. 14-1167(L), 14-1169, 14-1174 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and JOANNE HARRIS and JESSICA DUFF; and VICTORIA KIDD and CHRISTY BERGHOFF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Intervenors, v. GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, III, in his official capacity as the Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court, Defendant-Appellant, and JANET M. RAINEY, in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records; Defendant-Appellant, MICHLE B. McQUIGG, in her official capacity as Prince William County Clerk of Circuit Court, Intervenor-Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division Civ. No. 2:2013-cv-00395 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS AND GAYS, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND INTERVENORS AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE Jiyun Cameron Lee Andrew J. Davis FOLGER LEVIN LLP 199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 625-1050 Fax: (415) 615-1091 Email: jlee@folgerlevin.com Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc.
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 2 of 38
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER INTERESTS Disclosures must be filed on behalf of all parties to a civil, agency, bankruptcy or mandamus case, except that a disclosure statement is not required from the United States, from an indigent party, or from a state or local government in a pro se case. In mandamus cases arising from a civil or bankruptcy action, all parties to the action in the district court are considered parties to the mandamus case. Corporate defendants in a criminal or post-conviction case and corporate amici curiae are required to file disclosure statements. If counsel is not a registered ECF filer and does not intend to file documents other than the required disclosure statement, counsel may file the disclosure statement in paper rather than electronic form. Counsel has a continuing duty to update this information. 14-1167 No. __________
Bostic, et al. v. Schaefer, III, et al. Caption: __________________________________________________
Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26.1,

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. ______________________________________________________________________________ (name of party/amicus)
______________________________________________________________________________
Amicus Curiae who is _______________________, makes the following disclosure: (appellant/appellee/petitioner/respondent/amicus/intervenor)
1.
Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?
YES
NO
2.
Does party/amicus have any parent corporations? YES 4 NO If yes, identify all parent corporations, including grandparent and great-grandparent corporations:
3.
Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES 4 NO If yes, identify all such owners:
10/28/2013 SCC
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 3 of 38
4.
Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Rule 26.1(b))? YES 4 NO If yes, identify entity and nature of interest:
5.
Is party a trade association? (amici curiae do not complete this question) YES 4 NO If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member:
6.
Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding? If yes, identify any trustee and the members of any creditorscommittee:
YES
NO
/s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee Signature: ____________________________________ Amicus Curiae Counsel for: __________________________________
Date: ___________________ April 18, 2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
************************** April 18, 2014 I certify that on _________________ the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at the addresses listed below:
/s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee _______________________________ (signature) - ii
________________________ April 18, 2014 (date)
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 4 of 38
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE ............................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................. iv INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE ................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 4 I. THE VIRGINIA MARRIAGE LAWS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AND HARM GAYS AND LESBIANS BY RELEGATING THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AN INFERIOR STATUS ......... 4 A. B. C. II. Story of Colette Roberts ....................................... 5 Story of Kris Morley-Nikfar ................................. 8 Story of Linda Stroupe ....................................... 12
SAME-SEX COUPLES JOINING IN MARRIAGE NEITHER POSE RISKS TO THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE NOR THREATEN CHILDREN ............................................ 15 A. B. C. D. Story of Terri Washburn ..................................... 17 Story of Maya Jaffe and Helen Leneman ........... 19 Story of Janice Marcus and Allison Black ......... 23 Story of Mike Neubecker ................................... 27
CONCLUSION.................................................................................. 30 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(A) ............... 32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................... 33
iii
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 5 of 38
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) ........................................................................ 30 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) .............................................................................. 4 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ................................................................ 4, 5, 15 United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ................................................................ 5, 16 Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) .......................................................................... 4
iv
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 6 of 38
INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE1 Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, Inc. (PFLAG) respectfully submits this amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. PFLAG is a national, nonprofit organization that promotes the health, well-being, and civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons, as well as their families and friends. Nationwide, PFLAG has more than 200,000 members and supporters, with approximately 350 affiliates. In Virginia, PFLAG has 12 chapters and more than 20,400 members. PFLAG was founded in 1973 by mothers and fathers of gay and lesbian children. The impetus for PFLAGs founding was the act of one mother, Jeanne Manford. Ms. Manford took the then-unusual step of publicly supporting her gay son by participating in a gay rights march, holding a handmade sign reading Parents of Gays Unite in Support for our Children. Ms. Manfords role in founding PFLAG was recognized in 2013 when she posthumously received the nations second-highest civilian honor, the Presidential Citizens Medal. In the 41 years since its founding, PFLAG has provided support services to LGBT individuals, their families, and friends to assist in coping with discrimination and hostility. PFLAG has further engaged in education and Counsel represents that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and no person or entity other than PFLAG and its counsel has made any monetary contribution to the preparation and submission of this brief.
1
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 7 of 38
advocacy efforts, through which it seeks to create a society in which all citizens enjoy full civil and legal equality. Today, PFLAGs members are predominantly heterosexual parents, children, grandparents, siblings and friends of LGBT individuals who desire that their family members enjoy the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples. PFLAG has a strong interest in ensuring the right of same-sex couples to marry, and its members are uniquely positioned to address and rebut certain arguments made by Appellants. In particular, PFLAGs members have first-hand knowledge of how restrictions on same-sex marriage have negatively impacted not only same-sex couples themselves, but also their family members. Further, having witnessed committed same-sex relationships and marriages, PFLAG members can rebut Appellants argument that same-sex marriage poses risks to opposite-sex marriage and children. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT PFLAG submits that the judgments of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia should be affirmed. This amicus curiae brief will offer the perspectives of PFLAGs members on two of the issues raised in this appeal: 1. PFLAG offers personal stories of its members demonstrating that
prohibiting committed same-sex couples in Virginia from marrying relegates their relationships to an inferior status, recognized as demeaning by the couples, their
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 8 of 38
families and the wider community. Their stories illustrate both the profound importance of marriage for these committed couples and their family members, and the harm flowing from this discriminatory exclusion from participation in a married family life. 2. PFLAG offers personal stories showing there is no risk to the
marriages of opposite-sex couples or children merely because same-sex couples also commit to marriage. As heterosexual family members of people who are gay or lesbian, PFLAGs members are uniquely situated: they can offer first-hand accounts of how observing same-sex couples in committed relationships and marriages has reaffirmed, rather than harmed, their views on the importance of the institution. *** The harm resulting from state bans on same-sex couples marrying is most directly felt by the same-sex couples themselves. But the family members of same-sex couples are profoundly affected as well, and would be deeply and adversely affected if the judgments below were to be reversed. Prohibitions on same-sex marriage tell family members of people who are gay or lesbian that their children, grandchildren and siblings are inferior and that their families are not entitled to equal dignity under the law. As such, these laws cannot be reconciled with the Constitutions guarantees of due process and equal protection.
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 9 of 38
ARGUMENT I. THE VIRGINIA MARRIAGE LAWS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AND HARM GAYS AND LESBIANS BY RELEGATING THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AN INFERIOR STATUS. The District Court properly held that marriage is a fundamental right, subject to strict scrutiny. Opinion, p. 23. By excluding same-sex couples from marriage, Virginia has imposed legal disabilities on people who are gay or lesbian, and demeaned their committed relationships. Article I, Section 15-A of the Virginia Constitution and Section 20-45.2-45.3 of the Virginia Code (the Virginia Marriage Laws) preclude same-sex couples from participating in what the Supreme Court has described as the most important relation in life (Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978) (citation omitted)), and one that is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). Further, while PFLAG submits that the District Court was correct in applying strict scrutiny to Appellants Due Process challenge, the Virginia Marriage Laws would be unconstitutional even under a less stringent standard of review. [A] bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634 (1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Classifications of people who are gay or lesbian that do not further a proper legislative end but act to
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 10 of 38
make them unequal to everyone else are thus unconstitutional. Id. at 635. The Supreme Court has recognized that laws with the principal purpose and the necessary effect of demean[ing] same-sex couples cannot survive due process and equal protection challenges. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2695-96 (2013). PFLAGs members have experienced and observed the stigmatizing and demeaning effects of marriage prohibitions on their children, family members, and friends. Without being able to describe their relationships as marriages, same-sex couples cannot fully convey the nature and importance of their life-long commitment. See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 31 (non-recognition of same-sex marriage makes it difficult for family members to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family). PFLAG asks the court to consider the following stories from its members, which underscore the ways in which denying same-sex couples the right to marry harms and dishonors the couples and the families who love them. A. Story of Colette Roberts Jim and I married in 1958, at a time when inter-racial marriage was still banned in more than 16 states. I am the product of a
mixed-race marriage my heritage includes a bit of everything, including East Indian, French, African-American and my family
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 11 of 38
accepted my relationship with Jim from the start. Jims ancestry is a little bit British, a little bit Swiss. His mom objected at first but eventually accepted our marriage. We were lucky in that way we did not face too many problems, although I do remember one of Jims college classmates saying: Its bad enough that youre marrying her. Just dont have any kids. Needless to say, we ignored his advice and I am so glad we did. We have four children. Jims job had us moving around quite a bit when they were kids. Each time we moved, we would look for good school districts and ended up in predominantly white neighborhoods. I know it was sometimes difficult for the kids to have us as parents. They were taunted and teased. I reminded them many times that ignorance is loud and prejudice is strong, but that they should hold their heads high because this is who they are. And all four of them have grown up to be confident and successful individuals. Nina, our second eldest, is lesbian. Nina never said anything to us about her sexual orientation when she was in high school. She went away to college and during one Christmas break, I found a love note that she had written to another young woman in the trash can.
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 12 of 38
Shortly after finding the note, I said to Nina, Your dad and I know that you are gay. I told her how much we loved her and asked her why she had not said anything. Nina started crying. She said she had met so many young people who had been rejected by their families because of their sexual orientation, and that although she knew we loved her, she was scared that we, too, would reject her. It just broke my heart that any child of ours could be so scared that we might reject her. Did I worry about Nina once she came out? Of course. I worried that she would experience discrimination, that she would have a tough time, simply for being who she is. Would she find someone to love, who loved her? Would she be able to marry, to have that security that Jim and I have enjoyed, that her brother and sisters can enjoy without question? For the last nine years, Nina has been in a committed relationship with Michele. So the laws against same-sex marriages impact me and my family on a personal level. The sole purpose of such laws is to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying. But the word marriage is very important in our society. If Jim and I were told that we could not use that word to describe our union, that
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 13 of 38
we have to use some other word to describe our relationship because the word marriage was not available for inter-racial couples, that, to me, would mean that our relationship did not have the respect of our society. And laws against same-sex marriage tell my daughter, and all other gay and lesbian sons and daughters, just that: that they do not have the respect of our society. It wasnt that long ago that Jim and I would have been barred from marrying. The reasons why people wanted to outlaw inter-racial marriage then very much resemble the reasons why people want to ban same-sex marriage now: it is because both kinds of marriages are seen as somehow not right or natural. But it is unthinkable today to imagine a law that says inter-racial couples may not marry. People say to me all the time that race is different because people cannot choose their race. But thats just it: Nina did not choose to be gay; she can no more choose to be straight than I can choose to be white. B. Story of Kris Morley-Nikfar I was born and raised in Fairfax County, Virginia, where I live today. In 2002, I moved to Georgia for graduate school, where I met the man who would later become my husband, Jason Morley. Almost
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 14 of 38
immediately after meeting him, I recognized, in Jason, a kindness and respect for others that I have yet to find in anyone else. He quickly became my strongest advocate and stood by my side on my best and worst days. Jason was there to tell me when I was doing something wrong (in a loving way of course), and to defend me when others did wrong by me. Its hard to explain in words how much he changed my life. About a year after we met, Jason and I were on vacation when he asked me how I was feeling about our relationship. I responded, As far as Im concerned, Id be happy to spend the rest of my life with you. To my surprise, Jason responded with a serious question, Well, would you? I said, yes, and from that day on we considered ourselves engaged. At that time and place 2003 in Atlanta the prospects for a legally-binding marriage seemed remote. But we decided to have a wedding, albeit one that was not legally recognized. It was an
amazing experience to be able to affirm our love for each other in our home church, and to be surrounded by our friends and family. The witnesses to our ceremony included our parents and my 90-year-old grandmother. Between me and Jason, we have a pretty diverse
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 15 of 38
background, with Jasons mother active in the Southern Baptist Church and my father having immigrated to this country, as an adult, from Iran. But both of our families were very supportive of our decision to spend the rest of our lives together. In 2004, Jason got a job in Massachusetts and so we moved there just as Massachusetts began recognizing same-sex marriages. We were legally married in June of 2004, and it was incredibly meaningful to have our relationship afforded the same legal protections as any other loving, committed couple. To further signify our union with each other, Jason and I both legally changed our last names to Morley-Nikfar. Soon thereafter, we moved back to Atlanta and gained an even greater appreciation of the importance of legal recognition of our relationship. Upon returning to Atlanta, we were required to obtain new Georgia drivers licenses. Because we had formally changed our names upon getting married in Massachusetts, we were told we needed to be able to explain that change by bringing a copy of our marriage certificate to the DMV. Of course, we werent asking for legal recognition of our Massachusetts marriage; we were simply providing documentation that explained the reason for our name
10
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 16 of 38
change.
The humiliating treatment we received from the DMV the officials told us that our
officials is burned into my brain:
marriage certificate was not a legal document, that our marriage wasnt real, that wed have to leave, and that wed have to go to court to obtain a legal name change if we wanted to get drivers licenses with our new last name on them. All eyes in the room turned to us as the officials loudly berated us. It was a searing experience, and one that reminded us of the profound importance of legal recognition of our marriage. Weve since left Atlanta and returned to Virginia. But the lack of legal recognition of our marriage continues to affect us. Jason and I want to raise children together and have been exploring options for adoption or surrogacy for several years. In 2011, we went to an adoption agency in the DC area that often works with gay couples. Their advice to us was sobering: if you want to adopt, you need to move out of Virginia, because only single individuals and couples whose marriages are recognized by Virginia are entitled to adopt. Could there be any more clear statement from my home state that it does not value my relationship with Jason and that the family we are attempting to create is considered second-class? Jason and I
11
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 17 of 38
have made a commitment to love and support each other through lifes joys and challenges. Weve longed for the ability to raise a family together and have recently begun the surrogacy process. Well be parents within a year and we only want the same rights and protections every other family has. Virginia to achieve that dream. C. Story of Linda Stroupe I live in Greensboro, North Carolina, with my husband of 42 years, Mac. Mac and I became active in PFLAG after our younger son, Carter, came out at the age of 13. I wasnt shocked by Carters news I think I knew, at some level, that he might be gay, though it was not something I had consciously recognized. As a 13-year-old, Carter didn't realize that it would be a big deal to come out and he certainly didnt plan it. He was on an overnight trip with his middle-school orchestra, when a friend of his told him, My brother is gay, and I think you are, too. Carter spontaneously answered, I think I am, too. This news spread rapidly throughout the orchestra, and by the time the group returned to Greensboro, Carter was well on his way to becoming an outcast. A We shouldnt have to leave
12
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 18 of 38
few of his friends, virtually all girls, continued to be friends, but most did not. Shortly afterwards, he was invited to a birthday party at a friends home. When he got the invitation, I was happy and relieved that he was still being included in social activities. Then when his father and I went to pick him up after the party, we witnessed a heart-breaking demonstration of ostracism. All of the students at the party were hanging around outdoors waiting to be picked up by their parents. As soon as our car pulled up, all of the other boys made a show of walking away from Carter in a bloc. They crossed the
driveway together and silently stood together and stared directly at Carter. Their message was clear. You are not one of us
anymore. Many more indignities followed during the rest of middle school and high school. Once when I asked Carter if any of the other gay students at his school had come out, he said, not since theyve seen what happened to me. Mac and I lost Carter as the result of an accidental drowning at the beach in 2010. He was only 27. Given the loss of our son, some people ask why I continue to be involved with PFLAG and support its work, especially on marriage equality. But the issue of marriage
13
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 19 of 38
equality is no less worthy to us today than it was during Carters lifetime. Marriage is a unique event in our society in which we celebrate, and our laws affirm, the union of two people. It is the exact opposite of the lack of acceptance that many gay men and women like Carter have known. Marriage equality is about fairness. I grew up in the Southern Baptist faith, which taught me to stand up for my beliefs. As a teenager growing up in the South in the 60s, I witnessed my church and its members fighting for racial equality. The pastor of our
congregation received death threats when he spoke in favor of desegregation in the public schools. Observing this and other brave acts taught me not only to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but also to stand up for issues I believe in. Throughout our 42-year marriage, Mac and I have had our union recognized by our community and by our State. But in too many States, including in North Carolina, same-sex couples do not enjoy that right. Despite the fact they are two consenting adults, same-sex couples are denied the right to marry the person of their choice and deprived of the legal protections that marriage affords.
14
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 20 of 38
Some people believe that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and they cite this belief as a reason they think same-sex marriage should be outlawed. However, the State would readily issue a marriage license to two older adults of the opposite sex who have no intention of procreating, regardless of whether they have known each other for one week or for one month. But the State wont issue a marriage license to two adults of the same sex who love each other and are raising children together. That is profoundly unfair. Marriage is the way that society affirms and recognizes a relationship. We should permit same-sex marriage, and with our laws tell same-sex couples that they are equal, and that their committed relationships are just as worthy of recognition as any other. II. SAME-SEX COUPLES JOINING IN MARRIAGE NEITHER POSE RISKS TO THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE NOR THREATEN CHILDREN. Even under a rational basis analysis,2 government action that discriminates against a discrete class of individuals cannot survive an equal protection challenge unless the classification bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. Romer, 517 U.S. at 631. PFLAG submits that Virginias Marriage Laws are subject to heightened scrutiny. However, for purposes of this Amicus Brief, PFLAG will confine its discussion to responding to arguments regarding application of rational basis review.
2
15
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 21 of 38
PFLAG believes that Appellants reliance on supposed risks to the institution of marriage or the commitment of heterosexual parents to their children (see, e.g., McQuigg Br. at 3441) is entirely misplaced. This specious claim ignores the many children who are currently being raised by same-sex couples, who as the Supreme Court has observed, are being humiliate[d] by non-recognition of same-sex marriage, making it even more difficult for 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. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. This contention also ignores the double standard Virginia is imposing, since Virginia freely permits marriages between opposite-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate. PFLAG offers the Court the unique perspectives of its members, the very demographic group for which Appellants profess concern: heterosexual family members and close friends of same-sex couples who have witnessed the commitments made by same-sex couples. As the following stories illustrate, observing same-sex couples in committed relationships and marriages brings joy and security to their heterosexual family members, and reaffirms the importance of the institution.
16
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 22 of 38
A. Story of Terri Washburn My husband and I recently relocated to Virginia from Texas, to be closer to my daughter, Melinda, and her family. Melinda is an equine veterinarian. Her partner, Jenny, is the co-founder of a
non-profit, therapeutic horseback riding center for people with disabilities. Melinda and Jenny have been together for eight years and live in Catlett, Virginia, with their two-year-old daughter. Melinda was a very easy child; Ive always said she was born with a halo on her head. She was smart, well-behaved, and did well in school. I never suspected, or even considered, that she might be gay, until she came out to me at the age of 24. While Melindas news was a bit of a bombshell, the fact that she is gay was not devastating to me and I never considered distancing myself from my daughter because of it. But I did need some time to process the news and to grieve. For me, the main concern was: is my daughter going to be subjected to bigotry? I feared the answer would be yes, and worried about the impact of prejudice on my daughters life. I also worried about whether Melinda would be able to find a suitable life partner. The minute I met Jenny, I knew she had. Their
17
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 23 of 38
relationship made sense: both are hard-working, highly accomplished individuals in their fields. Each of them is comfortable with who she is, and has a good sense of humor. They share interests, but their interests are not identical. Most importantly, they have deep respect for each other. When Melinda and Jenny told me they wanted to start a family, I was thrilled. They made the decision that Jenny would carry the child, and their daughter (my granddaughter) was born in 2012. Their community, too, was excited for them: there was an outpouring of love in the rural community where Melinda and Jenny have their home, resulting in not just one, but two, baby showers to celebrate my granddaughters arrival. From the beginning, both Melinda and Jenny have been dedicated, adoring parents. I had the opportunity to witness their dedication first-hand when they asked me to come to Virginia to help them out shortly after my granddaughter was born. The two of them shared parenting duties to an extent that was unimaginable to me in my day. They handed the baby back and forth, both falling madly in love and reveling in all of the joys and responsibilities of parenthood.
18
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 24 of 38
But of course, in Virginia, Melinda and Jenny are not able to marry, and Melinda is not able to adopt this child who is her daughter. Because Melinda and Jenny are of the same sex, the laws tell them they are unequal, and that they may not affirm their commitment to each other, and in Melindas case, her commitment to her child. As Melindas mother, I can think of no greater injustice, not only to Melinda and Jenny but to my granddaughter. My
granddaughter will thrive in Melinda and Jennys home. She will be loved and encouraged by her moms. There is absolutely no benefit in upholding laws that prevent her moms from marrying, but a great deal of harm, because those laws will do nothing more than convey to Melinda, Jenny, and their daughter that their family is second-class and not worthy of the same protections as other families. I hope that in my lifetime, I will see my daughter and her family be treated equally under the law. B. Story of Maya Jaffe and Helen Leneman Maya Jaffe: I was born in 1979 in Los Angeles, but grew up in Maryland. I now live in London with my husband, and we are
expecting the birth of our first child this month.
19
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 25 of 38
My mom and dad divorced when I was two years old. By the time I was about three, my mom, Sima Lieberman, was in a committed relationship with Helen, and they have been together ever since. I have no conscious memory of my life without Helen, and she was a second mom to me from a very early age. Helen Leneman: When I first moved in with Sima and Maya, I was the classic step-parent who had to win the acceptance of a young child: Maya did not like the fact that she now had to share Sima with me. We ultimately bonded over our mutual love of music: I was watching opera one evening on TV, and Maya became curious. She climbed into my lap to watch with me, and we spent many hours like that. I eventually gave Maya piano and voice lessons, and music really cemented our relationship. Maya: As a family, we were not out to everyone. By the age of 10 or so, I felt that I had to be careful when talking about Helen. For instance, I attended Hebrew school at a synagogue where Helen worked as a bar mitzvah tutor. Helen was not out at the synagogue, because she wasn't sure how it would be received by the families of children she worked with. So she was my Aunt Helen.
20
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 26 of 38
Still, as a child and teen, I was blissfully unaware of the fact that Mom and Helen worried about practical matters, such as what would happen if something happened to my mom, or if something happened to me while my mom wasnt around. My mom is a
conservation biologist, and her work required her to travel regularly. Helen, on the other hand, worked largely from home and was more the stay-at-home parent. What if I had been hospitalized during Moms absence would Helen have been allowed to visit me and make medical decisions for me? What if something had happened to Mom? Would I have been allowed to stay with Helen? These are the things I never thought about, but which concerned them both. Helen: Fortunately, we never had to deal with those what ifs. With fewer practical issues in particular, issues around
child-rearing impacting our lives, marriage did not seem as important to us in recent years. Sima and I had often dismissed the importance of marriage, probably because marriage was out of our reach as a lesbian couple. But when same-sex marriage became legal in our home state of Maryland in 2013, we decided to do it. As we grow older, we felt that our relationship should be given the same
21
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 27 of 38
protections under federal and State laws as any other committed relationship. So I was completely thrown, on our wedding day, at the incredible emotion I felt. We had planned a May wedding, so that Maya and her husband could be there, as well as our other families and friends. There we were, after more than 30 years together as a couple, and it was the very first time in our journey that we could so publicly affirm our love for each other and have our union recognized, not just by those who love us, but by the State and country we live in. To be able to stand before our loved ones and affirm our love was overwhelming. Neither of us had expected that such a simple
ceremony would mean so much. Maya: I never doubted Mom and Helens commitment to each other. But their marriage was nonetheless powerful because finally, after more than 30 years together, the government was legitimizing and recognizing their union. Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that maintaining the institution of marriage for opposite-sex couples only is best for children. But my life experience directly contradicts that argument. I am a child of divorce, who ended up being raised by two moms. My
22
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 28 of 38
two moms gave me a loving and stable home, in which I knew I would be accepted and loved no matter what. They taught me to respect and accept others, and to not judge. They gave me room to thrive and to achieve, and to develop my own identity. I am better off today because of the loving home they provided. As I look forward to embarking on my own parenting journey, my greatest hope is that my husband and I can provide the same loving, stable home to our child that Mom and Helen gave to me. C. Story of Janice Marcus and Allison Black Janice Marcus: I live in Salt Lake City with my husband of 30 years, Jim. I have two sons and two step-sons. All four of our children are married. Thomas, my youngest son, is gay, and was married in New York last year to Josh Black. Allison Black: Janices son, Thomas, married my son, Josh. My husband and I live in Ogden, Utah and have been married for 32 years. We have four children. Janice: Thomas came out to me when he was 18. I had long suspected that he was gay, as had some of his classmates, who bullied him for years. As a result, I experienced a sense of relief when Thomas confirmed that he was gay, feeling that I could now provide
23
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 29 of 38
better support. But I still felt some sorrow. I knew that his life would involve situations that would be difficult simply because he is gay. I knew that, unlike other mothers, I would never be able to witness his wedding. While I continued to love him, I was surprised by the sadness I felt, much of which related to my fear that he would never have a family of his own. Allison: Josh also had a difficult childhood, marked by
demeaning (and worse) behavior from other kids. He came out to me when he was 21. Like Janice, I was not surprised, and told him that I would always love him. But one of my first thoughts was that my son would never be able to get married. My husband, Bruce, had a more difficult time when Josh came out, and for a couple of years, a wall grew between them. But then Bruce and I attended a pride parade (without Josh). At the parade, my husband carried a sign stating, PROUD DAD. When we sent Josh a photo of his dad with that sign, he immediately called his dad, and they had an emotional conversation. Since then, Bruce and Josh have rebuilt a wonderful relationship. Janice: Thomas and Josh began dating in 2007 and eventually moved from Utah to New York. On June 28, 2011, I was sitting at my
24
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 30 of 38
desk when Thomas called.
I answered and heard his voice say,
Mom, New York just passed gay marriage! At that point, I began to cry, and so did he. The only thing that would have made that moment any better was if he'd been with me. Allison: Upon the approval of gay marriage in New York, Thomas and Josh did not jump into marriage but waited to make sure that their love was strong enough to make that commitment. Over the Christmas holiday in 2012, Josh and Thomas returned to Salt Lake City. Our families had dinner at a restaurant one night to celebrate Thomas birthday. At one point, Josh stood up to propose a birthday toast to Thomas, but got choked up and couldnt continue. We were all puzzled, until Thomas stood up and said, Our visit this year had an ulterior motive. He and Josh then showed us the engagement rings they were wearing. The table exploded Janice and I jumped across the table to give each other a hug and then raced to embrace our sons. Janice: Last August, friends and family gathered in New York to witness Thomas and Josh exchange their vows. They held two ceremonies, one in a civil courthouse with family and a larger ceremony the following night. What I recall most about the exchange
25
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 31 of 38
of vows in the courthouse are the tears. I recall Thomas and Josh holding hands, and my son reaching out to push Joshs glasses over his nose theyd been slipping down because of his tears. I lack the words to express the sheer joy I experienced when my dream as a mother came true and my son was able to marry the love of his life and publicly affirm, before family and friends, his love for and commitment to Josh. Allison: Ive heard people say that recognition of my sons relationship as a marriage will somehow harm the institution of marriage or even children. How can anyone a straight single person, a straight couple, a child possibly be harmed by my sons decision to commit himself forever to the person he loves? In Josh and Thomas, I see two individuals who provide each other with support, care and laughter; who have voluntarily chosen to commit to each other, to stay together even when, as will happen, they encounter challenges and struggles in their relationship. Above all, I see that my son is starting a new family with Thomas. How could his family possibly hurt anyone else?
26
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 32 of 38
D. Story of Mike Neubecker My wife Janice and I have been married for 42 years and have one child, our son Lee. Until Lee came out to me at the age of 19, I had no idea he was gay. Lees coming out definitely challenged me. I grew up in a conservative Catholic family, attended Catholic schools from K-12, and then was drafted into the Army where I served for six years. Along the way, I had absorbed many negative views about gay people. These negative views were not based on anyone I knew personally, but from the misinformation and stereotypes so prevalent in our culture. When Lee first came out, I thought I had to choose between loving my son and my faith. I loved my son, so I was not willing to cast him aside. But my faith is also important to me, so I engaged in prayer, reading and study. It took some time but I came to realize that the most important lesson the Bible teaches is unconditional love. The Bible teaches us to love others and treat them as we ourselves would like to be treated, and I see no contradiction between that teaching and my love for Lee.
27
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 33 of 38
Opponents of same-sex marriage have said marriage should be reserved for opposite-sex couples, because permitting same-sex couples to marry will somehow pose risks to children, especially children in future generations. I could not disagree more with that statement. Anyone who knows my son, Lee, and his partner, David, would understand that their sexual orientation does not impact their ability to be good parents. The idea that they, as a couple or as a family, could pose a risk to anyone elses marriage or children, either now or in the future, makes no sense. About seven years ago, Lee and David adopted our grandchildren, Braiden and Michael, through the foster care system. Braiden, who is now 11 years old, wrote the following letter last year, in the hopes that it may help someone else understand her perspective. She wrote it on her own, with minor assistance from her teachers on spelling and grammar. Her words convey, more
eloquently than I ever could, why allowing her dads and other same-sex couples like them to marry will not pose any risks to children. Love is important! It doesn't matter who people love, as long as they are happy. Everyone should have the right to marry who he or she
28
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 34 of 38
wants. You may not like two men being married, but for them, it's normal. ... Before I lived with my two dads, my life was horrible. My old family never treated me well. They wouldnt stand up for me. If my foster sister fought with me, my old mom would just sit there and watch me get hurt, so I would have to fight back. Each time I was at foster home, the foster parents promised me they would keep me safe and treat my brother and I equally. But they always broke their promise. I moved five times until my dad and daddy found me. They also promised that they would always love me and keep me safe and they would treat me equal to my brother. I was 4 when I met them. Now I am 10 and they have kept their promises. They do so much for me. They never hurt me or my brother. I feel so safe. I believe I can do anything with my two dads. Would there be any purpose to ban the marriage of two men or two women when they can treat children the same or even better than other couples. I hope that you will do the right thing and let anyone marry who they want to. Braiden and Michael continue to thrive under Lee and Davids care. Both excel in school and are happy, well-adjusted children.
29
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 35 of 38
Lee and David recently added to their family, by obtaining legal custody of Davids nephew, Cody, last summer. Cody is a senior in high school. Before joining Lee and David, Cody was labeled trouble. But since becoming part of their family, he has become a model student, receiving straight As last semester and making the Deans list. Cody has applied to four universities around the country and is anxiously awaiting word on which school he will attend. Cody is active in his local church youth group, helping to organize the regional youth conference for their denomination. He also works part time after school to save up for his first car. No one can tell me that Lee and David are lesser parents, or that they and their children are any less a family, just because Lee and David are both men. They have given structure, stability, and most of all, love, to their children, and all of them and our society are the better for it. CONCLUSION Permitting two committed individuals to commit their lives to each other in marriage can do no harm to the institution of marriage or to children. Any contention otherwise is nothing more than irrational speculation. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 448 (1985) (mere negative
30
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 36 of 38
attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable . . . are not permissible bases for differential treatment). Such speculation is also contrary to the evidence presented to the District Court, the experience of jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage, and the experience of PFLAGs members. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the District Court should be affirmed. Dated: April 18, 2014 FOLGER LEVIN LLP
/s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee Jiyun Cameron Lee Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc.
31
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 37 of 38
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(A) Certificate of Compliance With Type-Volume Limitation, Typeface Requirements, and Type-Style Requirements This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 6,538 words, excluding parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). This brief complies with the typeface and spacing requirements of Fed. R. App. P 32(a)(5) and 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally-spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Word 2007 in 14-point Times New Roman style. Dated: April 18, 2014 FOLGER LEVIN LLP
32
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-1
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 38 of 38
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on April 18, 2014, a true, correct, and complete copy of the foregoing was filed with the Court via the Courts ECF system. The undersigned certifies further that all participants in the appeal are represented by some counsel who are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the Appellate CM/ECF System. Dated: April 18, 2014 FOLGER LEVIN LLP
833530.1
33
Appeal: 14-1167
Doc: 153-2
Filed: 04/18/2014
Pg: 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FORM

BAR ADMISSION & ECF REGISTRATION: If you have not been admitted to practice before the Fourth Circuit,
you must complete and return an Application for Admission before filing this form. If you were admitted to practice under a different name than you are now using, you must include your former name when completing this form so that we can locate you on the attorney roll. Electronic filing by counsel is required in all Fourth Circuit cases. If you have not registered as a Fourth Circuit ECF Filer, please complete the required steps at www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cmecftop.htm.
14-1167(L), 14-1169, 14-1174 THE CLERK WILL ENTER MY APPEARANCE IN APPEAL NO. ______________________________ as
[ ]Retained [ ]Court-appointed(CJA) [ ]Court-assigned(non-CJA) [ ]Federal Defender [4]Pro Bono [ ]Government
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. COUNSEL FOR: _______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________as the
(party name) appellant(s) appellee(s) petitioner(s) respondent(s) 4 amicus curiae intervenor(s)
/s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee ______________________________________ (signature) Jiyun Cameron Lee ________________________________________
Name (printed or typed)
(415) 625-1050 _______________

Voice Phone
Folger Levin LLP ________________________________________

Firm Name (if applicable)
(415) 625-1091 _______________

Fax Number
199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor ________________________________________ San Francisco, CA 94105 ________________________________________
Address
jlee@folgerlevin.com _________________________________
E-mail address (print or type)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
April 18, 2014 I certify that on _________________ the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at the addresses listed below:
______________________________ /s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee Signature

11/17/2011 SCC
____________________________ April 18, 2014 Date

Amicus Brief of PFLAG

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Amicus Brief of PFLAG

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Appeal: 14-1167

Total Pages:(1 of 39)

Total Pages:(2 of 39)

Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26.1,

Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?

Total Pages:(3 of 39)

Date: ___________________ April 18, 2014

/s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee _______________________________ (signature) - ii

________________________ April 18, 2014 (date)

Total Pages:(4 of 39)

Total Pages:(5 of 39)

Total Pages:(6 of 39)

Total Pages:(7 of 39)

Total Pages:(8 of 39)

Total Pages:(9 of 39)

Total Pages:(10 of 39)

Total Pages:(11 of 39)

Total Pages:(12 of 39)

Total Pages:(13 of 39)

Total Pages:(14 of 39)

Total Pages:(15 of 39)

Total Pages:(16 of 39)

officials is burned into my brain:

Total Pages:(17 of 39)

Total Pages:(18 of 39)

Total Pages:(19 of 39)

Total Pages:(20 of 39)

Total Pages:(21 of 39)

Total Pages:(22 of 39)

Total Pages:(23 of 39)

Total Pages:(24 of 39)

expecting the birth of our first child this month.

Total Pages:(25 of 39)

Total Pages:(26 of 39)

Total Pages:(27 of 39)

Total Pages:(28 of 39)

Total Pages:(29 of 39)

Total Pages:(30 of 39)

desk when Thomas called.

I answered and heard his voice say,

Total Pages:(31 of 39)

Total Pages:(32 of 39)

Total Pages:(33 of 39)

Total Pages:(34 of 39)

Total Pages:(35 of 39)

Total Pages:(36 of 39)

Total Pages:(37 of 39)

Total Pages:(38 of 39)

Total Pages:(39 of 39)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FORM

(415) 625-1050 _______________

Folger Levin LLP ________________________________________

(415) 625-1091 _______________

______________________________ /s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee Signature

____________________________ April 18, 2014 Date

Anda mungkin juga menyukai