PFLAG Amicus Brief

Case No.
14-2526
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA WOLF and CAROL SCHUMACHER;
ROY BADGER and GARTH WANGEMANN; and
MARIE CARLSON and CHARVONNE KEMP,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
SCOTT WALKER, in his official capacity as Governor of Wisconsin;
J . B. VAN HOLLEN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Wisconsin;
and
OSKAR ANDERSON, in his official capacity as State Registrar of Wisconsin,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
WENDY CHRISTENSEN, in her official capacity as Racine County Clerk;
J OSEPH CZARNEZKI, in his official capacity as Milwaukee County Clerk; and
SCOTT McDONELL, in his official capacity as Dane County Clerk,
Defendants - Parties-in-Interest,
and
J ULAINE K. APPLINT,
Party-in-Interest.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin
Case No. 14-CV-64 (The Honorable Barbara B. Crabb)
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF
LESBIANS AND GAYS, INC.
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
Andrew J . Davis
FOLGER LEVIN LLP
199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 625-1050
Fax: (415) 615-1091
Email: ddavis@folgerlevin.com
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Parents, Families
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc.
Case: 14-2526 Document: 158 Filed: 08/12/2014 Pages: 33
Case 14-2386 Document: 204
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No:
Short Caption:
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or
amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the
following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must
be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs
first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text
of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party's main brief. Counsel is required to
complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
[ ] PLEASE CHECK HERE IF ANY INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS NEW OR REVISED
AND INDICATE WHICH INFORMATION IS NEW OR REVISED.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the
corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P 26.1 by completing item #3):

(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings
in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:

(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and

ii) list any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the partys or amicus stock:

Attorney's Signature: Date:
Attorney's Printed Name:
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes No
Address:

Phone Number: Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
rev. 01/08 AK
14-2526
Wolf v. Walker
Amicus Curiae Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc.
Folger Levin LLP
N/A
N/A
s/ Andrew J. Davis August 11, 2014
Andrew J. Davis
199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 625-1050 (415) 625-1091
ddavis@folgerlevin.com
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ii
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................... ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................. iii
INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE ................................................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................... 2
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 4
I. BANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AND HARM
PEOPLE WHO ARE GAY OR LESBIAN BY
RELEGATING THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO
AN INFERIOR STATUS ............................................... 4
A. Story of Kay Heggestad & Paul Wertsch ............. 5
B. Story of Kristy Clark ............................................ 7
C. Story of Annette Gross ....................................... 10
D. Story of Colette Roberts ..................................... 12
II. SAME-SEX COUPLES J OINING IN
MARRIAGE NEITHER POSE RISKS TO THE
INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE NOR
THREATEN CHILDREN ............................................ 15
A. Story of Arantza Zabala ...................................... 16
B. Story of Tom and J an Harry ............................... 20
C. Story of Mike Neubecker ................................... 24
CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 27
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(A) ............... 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................... 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

iii
CASES
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center,
473 U.S. 432 (1985) ........................................................................ 27
Kitchen v. Herbert,
No. 13-4178, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. J une 25, 2014) ........... 16
Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1 (1967) .............................................................................. 4
Romer v. Evans,
517 U.S. 620 (1996) .................................................................... 4, 15
United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ............................................................ 4, 5, 16
Zablocki v. Redhail,
434 U.S. 374 (1978) .......................................................................... 4

1
INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE
1

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 Wisconsin,
Indiana and Illinois, PFLAG has 37 chapters and more than 16,000 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, J eanne
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 40 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

1
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.

2
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. (See Appellants Opening Brief, p. 56) (asserting that
opposite-sex marriage is optimal for families, children, and society).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
PFLAG submits that the judgment of the district court 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 from marrying relegates their

3
relationships to an inferior status, recognized as demeaning by the couples, their
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 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 judgment 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

4
equal dignity under the law. As such, these laws cannot be reconciled with the
Constitutions guarantees of due process and equal protection.
ARGUMENT
I. BANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AND
HARM PEOPLE WHO ARE GAY OR LESBIAN BY RELEGATING
THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AN INFERIOR STATUS.
Bans on same-sex marriage impose legal disabilities on people who are gay
or lesbian, and demean their committed relationships by precluding them 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).
[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 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).

5
PFLAGs members have experienced and observed the stigmatizing and
demeaning effects of marriage prohibitions on their children and other family
members. 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 Kay Heggestad & Paul Wertsch.
Kay: Paul and I have been married for 46 years and we have two
children. We live in Madison, Wisconsin. Our son, Greg, came out when he was
16 years old. When we learned that Greg was gay, both Paul and I did a little
crying and a lot of reading, but we both immediately told Greg that we loved him
and that he would have our unconditional support.
Paul: Greg now works for the Department of Homeland Security. For more
than thirteen years, Greg has been in a wonderful relationship with Mark
Ferrandino, who is the Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives. Greg
and Mark are registered domestic partners in Colorado and had a commitment
ceremony in 2006.

6
Kay: Their commitment ceremony was held in our hometown of Madison,
Wisconsin. It was a joyful affirmation of the relationship that Greg and Mark have
built. Mark and Greg were surrounded by their family and friends, many of whom
had traveled long distances to join in celebrating their commitment to each
other. In most ways the commitment ceremony felt like a wedding, right down to
having a judge serve as the officiant.
Paul: But, of course, Mark and Greg are not married under the law. The
fact that society does not confer the designation of marriage on their relationship
has important practical ramifications. But the most important benefits stemming
from the designation of marriage are more personal. Marriage is the term that
society reserves for the relationships that it deems most valuable. By treating
Mark and Greg as domestic partners, society is saying that their relationship is
less important than the marriage that Kay and I have.
Kay: Marriage means so much more than a legal contract for the couples
themselves, for their neighbors and for other members of the
community. Marriage means family. When Paul and I got married, we did not
think about the rights and privileges of marriage. We were thinking about creating
a committed relationship with each other.
Paul: Everyone around the world understands the word marriage. But
what is a domestic partner? It is a legal classification, with no emotional

7
connotation. The symbolic difference between a domestic partnership and a
marriage is the difference between a commercial contract and a personal
commitment. When I talk to friends and acquaintances about my family, I find
myself referring to Mark as my sons partner, and then I have to explain the
nature of their relationship, and how long they have been committed to each
other. Despite my best efforts, that lengthy explanation cannot possibly
communicate what the single word marriage can convey.
Kay: Greg and Mark have adopted a young girl, Lila. Paul and I are thrilled
to have a new granddaughter in the family. Our family deserves the same societal
respect as other families. Paul and I should be able to refer to Mark as our
son-in-law, with no hesitation whatsoever. And Lila should know that civil society
recognizes her parents relationship as a marriage, equal in dignity to that of any
opposite-sex marriage. Any young child knows what marriage means, but a
domestic partnership? No child grows up dreaming of a domestic partner. It is
unfair to Lila and children like her to say that their parents are somehow unworthy
of marriage because of who they are.
B. Story of Kristy Clark
My husband, Paul, and I live in Bountiful, Utah and have been married for
38 years. We have five children and eleven grandchildren, all of whom live within
10 miles of our home. As a mother, all I ever wanted for my children was for them

8
to be happy. For my third child, Weston, who is gay, one of my concerns was that
his happiness would be incomplete or limited because he would never be able to
marry or have children.
Fortunately, Weston has been able to find a life-long companion, Brandon,
and have children. Weston and Brandon met in 2000, and currently live in Salt
Lake City with their three-year-old son and two-month-old daughter. I see the
work they put into communicating with and supporting each other; the way they
complement and love each other. I am particularly impressed by what dedicated
parents they are and how they have structured their lives around their children.
Weston and Brandon are both active in the lives of their children, volunteering at
pre-school, coaching the soccer team, making their childrens needs and
development the focus of their lives.
Despite their decade-long commitment to each other and the kids that they
are raising together, Weston and Brandon were not legally permitted to get married
or recognized as a family in our State. This lack of legal acceptance was painful
for me. Much as we may not want to worry about what others think of us, a sense
that we are not accepted by others acts as a burr in the saddle, a constant pain or
sting, an impediment to the happiness I want for my children.
So it was with great joy that, on December 20, 2013, I learned that our
states law banning same-sex marriage had been struck down and same-sex

9
marriages were being performed. Because a stay might be granted at any moment,
Weston and Brandon told us that they were heading to the County Clerks office to
get married, and asked us to join them. It had been a difficult day for me that
morning I had received radiation treatment for a brain tumor. But, of course, my
husband and I drove down to the clerks office, so that we could witness and
celebrate Weston and Brandons wedding. It was an amazing scene: so much
excitement, so many committed couples who finally had a chance to have their
relationships recognized by the state.
Weston and Brandon were married at around 5:00 p.m. that day, surrounded
by family members, many friends, and hundreds of exuberant strangers. The most
important witness was their three-year-old son, whom Weston held in his arms as
he and Brandon exchanged their vows. I am so grateful that my grandchildren can
grow up knowing that society recognizes their dads commitment to each other as a
marriage.
As we watched Brandon and Weston exchange their vows, my husband
whispered to me, Look at Westons eyes. Ive never seen him so happy. A little
burr a little impediment to his happiness was being removed. A mother cannot
ask for anything more than to see that look in her sons eyes.

10
C. Story of Annette Gross
My husband, Allan, and I have lived in Carmel, Indiana, for 19 years. We
have a son, Matthew, who is 36. Matthew is gay, and he came out to us when he
was 19.
Matthew was unhappy for a number of years before he came out. When he
did, it was like a light switch going on; it was as if he was finally who he was
supposed to be.
I grew up in New York City, in a diverse community and in a fairly liberal
household. I knew gay men and lesbian women. But still, when Matthew came
out, it was as if I went into the closet. The traditional norms of our society were so
ingrained in me, that I did not know how to talk about the fact that my son was
gay. I felt as if our family was no longer normal. As a friend of mine - another
proud mom of a lesbian daughter - once said, we internalized prejudices
unknowingly, and the feeling was: its okay to be gay, but not in my house.
I also feared the prejudice in our society. Our son and my family were now
going to be seen as less than others, simply because Matthew is gay. Those
prejudices, I knew, could be life-threatening: right around the time our Matthew
came out, Matthew Shepherd had lost his life to prejudice. I feared for our sons
safety, and I worried every time Matthew failed to pick up the phone or return my
call.

11
In time, I learned to get over that fear. And eventually, I learned we were
not alone. Many other people around me, too, had children and other family
members who are gay or lesbian. I stopped internalizing the prejudices I had
unknowingly adopted, and rejected societys need to define our son by a single
characteristic. Because our son is an intelligent, warm, and caring individual. He
is a person deserving of opportunities, of equality, of happiness.
In Indiana, his home state, Matthew cannot get married. Because he is gay,
our state denies him that right. This is unfair. His father and I have been married
for 43 years, since we were 21 and 20 years old. My grandparents were married
for 64 years and died within 4 hours of each other. Matthew should have the right
to choose that kind of commitment and stability. To deny him that right tells him
he is less than, that he is less deserving than others.
Some people say I am old-fashioned, and that the right to marry does not
matter because same-sex couples can have all the legal protections of marriage by
having the right papers drawn up to take care of inheritance, child custody, and
medical matters. But thats just not true: having the ability to draw up the
papers requires money some people dont have, and more fundamentally, the fact
opposite-sex couples can take for granted the legal benefits of marriage when
same-sex couples cannot is, in itself, unfair.

12
But the real meaning of marriage is deeper, more personal and spiritual, than
the right to inherit or the right to make medical decisions. It is about the
commitment that two people have for each other. For three days this year in
Indiana, county clerks issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. For three
days, same-sex couples had the right to choose marriage and they did. Same-sex
couples who had been together for 3, 5, 10, even 20 years, lined up and waited to
get married. Nobody complained that the lines were too long - they were just
happy, ecstatic, to have the ability to make this commitment under the law. The
joy was overwhelming. Anyone who witnessed these marriages knew the couples
who chose to wed were not doing so just because of the legal protections. They
were choosing marriage because they wanted to declare their love and commitment
to each other.
I want my son to have that right. Because my son is not a second-class
citizen.
D. Story of Colette Roberts
J im and I married in 1958, 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 accepted my relationship with J im from the start. J ims ancestry is
a little bit British, a little bit Swiss. His mom objected at first but eventually

13
accepted our marriage. We were lucky in that way we did not face too many
problems, although I do remember one of J ims college classmates saying: Its
bad enough that youre marrying her. J ust dont have any kids. Needless to say,
we ignored his advice and I am so glad we did.
We have four children. 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. 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.

14
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 J im 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 J im
and I were told that we could not use that word to describe our union, that 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 J im 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.

15
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.
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 believes that Appellants reliance on supposed risks to the
institution of marriage or the States supposed interest in responsible procreation
is entirely misplaced. Appellants Br. 56. 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

2
PFLAG submits that bans on same-sex marriage are subject to heightened
scrutiny. However, PFLAG will confine its discussion to responding to arguments
regarding application of rational basis review.

16
community and in their daily lives. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. As the Tenth
Circuit recently held, it is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of the
love and commitment between same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and
personal decisions of opposite-sex couples. Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178,
2014 WL 2868044, *27 (10th Cir. J une 25, 2014).
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.
A. Story of Arantza Zabala
I grew up as the eldest of six children. Three of my siblings two brothers
and one sister are gay. While all six of us dealt with the ordinary challenges of
growing up, the difficulties faced by my gay brothers and lesbian sister were
particularly acute because society has always treated gay men and lesbian women
differently, as somehow lesser than, straight men and women.
Because of societal prejudices, it took one of my brothers a long time to
accept the fact that he is a gay man. He spent a significant part of his life trying to

17
be someone he was not; he married a woman, with the marriage eventually ending
in divorce. He remained closeted at work, eventually outed and fired for his sexual
orientation. Only recently has he found employment with an inclusive employer,
and is living in an accepting community. As a straight woman and sister, both the
internal and external struggles my brother must have gone through are
unimaginable: I never had to suppress my true self in order to live up to societal
expectations, nor have I ever been ostracized by my community.
My brother, of course, is not alone. Too many gay men and lesbian women
have struggled in the face of laws and norms that treat them differently. Laws
against same-sex marriage are just one example of such laws, and I believe these
laws are unfair because they treat gay men and lesbian women, and their
relationships, differently.
I have two very close friends I will call them Tom and Mark whom I
have known for over ten years. Tom has two daughters from an early marriage,
and during the entire time I have known them, Tom and Mark have raised the two
girls, who are now in college. Throughout my friendship with Tom, Mark and
their daughters, I have observed the very ordinary joys and challenges they faced
as a family.
One occasion, in particular, stands out in my mind. We were at a mutual
friends house enjoying a Sunday evening barbeque. Tom, who is the more

18
outgoing of the two, was socializing, while Mark was sitting, together with their
older daughter, whom I will call Kelly, at the table where I was seated. Mark
asked Kelly if she had finished her homework, and Kelly responded that she had
not. Kelly had a project due the following day, and from their conversation, it was
clear to me that Mark had been involved in this project from its inception and that
Kelly still had a fair amount of work left to do. Mark stood up, called to Tom that
they needed to leave, and shepherded all of them including Tom out the door so
Kelly could go home and finish her project.
What struck me then was how normal they were as a family. While I
usually dont like that word, normal, it really fit the situation: here was a very
traditional, normal, family scene, of a parent asking his child about her
homework, the child grumbling but acknowledging that she had yet to finish it, and
the parent deciding that they should go home despite the childs objection. While
this moment was memorable to me because it was so representative of every
family, years later when I discussed it with Mark and Kelly, neither could
remember it. There was no difference caused by the fact that Tom and Mark are
two gay men, or that Mark is not Kellys biological parent. They were, and are, a
family who has faced their everyday challenges as a family unit.
The two girls are, and have always been, very close to Tom and Mark. Last
year, Tom and Mark finally got married in Washington State. They chose to marry

19
there because the two girls were going to college near the Idaho-Washington
border, and could easily travel to witness the union. Tom and Mark wed, with
their daughters as their two witnesses.
But in Idaho, Tom and Marks marriage, like the marriages of so many
same-sex couples I know, is not recognized, even though they have been together
for 17 years. Denying Tom and Mark, and other same-sex couples, recognition of
their union under the law does no good, but does a lot of harm. In the event one
partner were to become ill, the other is not automatically entitled to make medical
decisions. If one partner passes away, the other partners right to inherit may be
jeopardized. Worse yet, a parent that is, someone who has, for all intents and
purposes, carried out all the duties of parenting for 1, 5, 10 or more years could
lose his or her rights to have custody or visitation, because that parent was not
allowed to be legally married and was not allowed to adopt the biological child of
his or her partner.
There is no fairness in any of these outcomes. As a straight woman, I can
take for granted that if I marry, I will be able to make medical decisions for my ill
husband, receive his retirement benefits, adopt a child together, and file taxes
jointly. Many of my friends, and my brothers and sister, cannot. But their
commitment to their partners and their children is no less deserving than mine. I

20
hope that as a society, we will soon cross that threshold, and grant the right to
same-sex couples to marry.
B. Story of Tom and Jan Harry
Tom: I was born and raised in Ohio. I attended the Boston University
School of Theology, where J an and I met. We married in 1971, and have lived and
served in Ohio ever since. We are both pastors in the United Methodist Church.
For the past11 years, we have served two churches together as co-pastors.
Jan: We have two children, our daughter Sonya and our son Chris. Both
children are married, but Sonyas marriage is not recognized under the laws of
Ohio.
Growing up, Sonya always dreamt of getting married and having two kids.
She wanted the whole wedding package: a beautiful white dress, a tiered wedding
cake, and a big party with her family and friends. A family friend promised to
make a fancy wedding cake for her when the big day came.
Tom: Sonya came out to us as an adult. At the time, she was living at home,
having completed her Masters degree and saving money to pay off her educational
debts. J an and I remember the day a little differently than Sonya we do not recall
having a hard time with her news that she is gay, but what Sonya recalls of our
reaction is different than what we remember (or have chosen to remember). If we

21
had a hard time in the moment, I think Sonya will agree we came to acceptance
quickly.
Jan: What I mainly recall about her coming out is my fear for our daughter.
Sonya was just embarking on her career in social services. It was 2000 our
society was even less accepting of lesbians and gays then and I worried that as a
lesbian, Sonya would encounter barriers, even hostility, in her chosen field. There
was also her dream of marriage and children I feared that dream had gone down
the tubes.
But Sonya proved us wrong. By 2002, she was in a committed relationship
with Alison, and they wanted to affirm their commitment in a ceremony before
family and friends. So we put up two big tents in our yard, and Sonya made two
beautiful white dresses, one each for herself and Alison. They had a covenant
ceremony, adapting the vows that Tom and I had used at our wedding to make
them uniquely theirs.
Tom: A colleague of Alisons who was a retired Catholic priest led the
ceremony, in which not only they, but their friends, spoke. While we were deeply
saddened that we could not perform the ceremony as clergy (our Church does not
recognize same-sex marriage), it was meaningful for all of us that their ceremony
was grounded in their faith. I have always believed that marriage includes God.
While the two people make the marriage, there is a sacredness in marriage that

22
transcends them. Sonya and Alison are women of faith, who believe in the
sacredness of their commitment. Their ceremony reflected that sacredness.
Jan: Over 100 family and friends came together to celebrate their
commitment. Several gay couples we knew said at the time, we wish we had
lived in a time when we could have done that. Our family friend even made the
tiered wedding cake as she had promised Sonya many years ago.
It wasnt all rosy, of course when some of our neighbors learned the reason
for the two big tents in our yard, they said they would go away to avoid exposing
their children to the event. But several other neighbors came to us, sharing stories
of their brother, their aunt, or another family member who is gay.
Tom: Sonya and Alison are now parents to two boys, fulfilling Sonyas
childhood dream of being a mom.
We are fortunate to live just three blocks away from our grandchildren.
Having witnessed their journey as parents, we can say, without hesitation, that
Sonya and Alison are conscientious and nurturing parents. They volunteer at
school, ride bikes and play sports with their kids, and have made thoughtful
decisions to select the right schools, as well as to foster the boys strong connection
with their Church. They are doing a beautiful, but also very ordinary, job as
parents, in the sense that what they do for their children is no different than what
any other couple, same-sex or opposite-sex, would want to do for their children.

23
Jan: Unfortunately, Ohios laws fail to recognize Sonya and Alison as a
married couple, despite the fact that in October 2013, they were legally married in
New York State. Sonya and Alison have had to incur costs that straight, married
couples do not have to incur. For example, they had to go to court to make sure
that Alison would have equal parental rights and responsibilities as Sonya, and
they have incurred greater tax burdens because their union is not recognized under
the law.
These financial issues directly impact Sonya, Alison, and our grandchildren
on a daily basis. Every dollar they have to spend to ensure legal rights for Alison
as a parent puts them behind financially. This is unequal and unfair.
Unequal treatment of Sonya and Alisons marriage under the law continues
to legitimize discrimination against them and their children. We want our
grandchildren to be treated as typically delightful children, like all the others in
their school or neighborhood. While we understand that it will take time for
schools, recreation programs, and the society at large to speak of parents, and not
of mom and dad, we firmly believe that legal recognition of Sonya and Alisons
relationship will help raise awareness, and with it, acceptance.

24
C. Story of Mike Neubecker
I was born and raised in Michigan. My wife J anice 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.
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

25
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 doesnt matter who people love,
as long as they are happy. Everyone should have the
right to marry who he or she wants. You may not like
two men being married, but for them, its 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

26
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.
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 was accepted at four out of five universities he
applied to, and is looking forward to starting college in the fall. 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.

27
CONCLUSION
Permitting two committed individuals to commit their lives to each other in
marriage can do no harm to the institution of marriage. 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 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 below, 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: August 11, 2014

FOLGER LEVIN LLP

s/ Andrew J. Davis
Andrew J . Davis
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Parents, Families and Friends
of Lesbians and Gays, Inc.


28
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 6,412 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.

FOLGER LEVIN LLP

s/ Andrew J. Davis
Andrew J . Davis


29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 25(c)(1)(D) and 5th Cir. R. 25, the
undersigned certifies that on August 11, 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 is registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the Appellate CM/ECF System.


FOLGER LEVIN LLP

s/ Andrew J. Davis
Andrew J . Davis


PFLAG Amicus Brief

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

PFLAG Amicus Brief

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case No.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai