S U P R E M E

J U L [ A J O R D A N

C O U R T

O F

A L A B A M A
OFFICE

W E L L E R

C L E R K
T E R E S A

3 0 0

L A R R Y
C H I E F

MONTGOMERY,

H. A L L E N

A S S I S T A N T

C L E R K

(334)

March 5, 2015

I S R A E L
F I N A N C I A L

O FTHE CLERK

DECTER
A L

AVENUE
36104-3741

2 2 & O 7 0 0

O F F I C E R

Honorable Probate Judges o f Alabama

A t t o r n e y s and P a r t i e s o f Record
Supreme Court Case Docket No. 1140460
RE:
Ex p a r t e S t a t e o f Alabama ex r e l . Alabama P o l i c y
I n s t i t u t e , Alabama C i t i z e n s A c t i o n Program, and John E.
E n s l e n , i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as Judge o f Probate f o r
Elmore County
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In r e : A l a n L. K i n g , i n h i s o f f i c i a l
Probate f o r J e f f e r s o n County, e t a l . }

c a p a c i t y as Judge o f

T h i s i s t o c e r t i f y t h a t c o r r e c t e d pages 104 and 132-133

of t h e o p i n i o n r e l e a s e d on March 3, 2015, have been i n s e r t e d
i n l i e u o f t h e o r i g i n a l pages 104 and 132-133. Copies o f t h e
c o r r e c t e d pages a r e forwarded h e r e w i t h .
Sincerely,

Clerk
Supreme Court o f Alabama
CORRECTED PAGES ATTACHED

1140460
government s p o n s o r s h i p o f i t .

Thus, under t h e i r own t h e o r y ,

e i t h e r t h e a s p e c t o f m a r r i a g e t h e same-sex p a r t n e r s i n s i s t
s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n i s not fundamental t o
its

nature,

i n which

case

Alabama's

laws

enforcing the

t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of marriage are not u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ,

o r m a r r i a g e i s a fundamental r i g h t b u t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
upon which

same-sex p a r t n e r s n e c e s s a r i l y must h i n g e

d e f i n i t i o n o f m a r r i a g e f a i l t o e x p l a i n government's

their

interest

i n marriage.
Having

discarded

o t h e r c a n d i d a t e s f o r what a s p e c t o f

m a r r i a g e i s so fundamental
protection,

we a r e l e f t

that i t warrants

with

the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

remained unchanged throughout h i s t o r y :

been between members o f the o p p o s i t e sex.
f o r t h i s immutable

constitutional
t h a t has

m a r r i a g e has always
The o b v i o u s r e a s o n

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s nature.

complement each o t h e r b i o l o g i c a l l y and s o c i a l l y .

Men and women

Perhaps even

more o b v i o u s , t h e s e x u a l u n i o n between men and women (often)

produces

children.

Marriage

demonstrably

channels the

r e s u l t s o f sex between
^^See DeBoer, 772 F.3d a t 404 {"One s t a r t s from t h e
premise t h a t governments got i n t o t h e b u s i n e s s o f d e f i n i n g
m a r r i a g e , and remain i n the b u s i n e s s o f d e f i n i n g m a r r i a g e , not
t o r e g u l a t e l o v e b u t t o r e g u l a t e sex, most e s p e c i a l l y the
i n t e n d e d and u n i n t e n d e d e f f e c t s o f male-female i n t e r c o u r s e . ") .
104

1140460
t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n i s inaccurate.
are

concerned here w i t h

definitions.

I n p o i n t o f f a c t , we

two d i f f e r e n t , m u t u a l l y

exclusive

One t h a t m a r r i a g e i s o n l y between a man and a

woman, and one t h a t does n o t i n c l u d e t h i s l i m i t a t i o n .

d e f i n i t i o n s cannot be t r u e a t t h e same time.
the

law

must

legitimize

one

Both

I n s i s t i n g that

definition

necessarily

d e l e g i t i m i z e s the other.
Throughout

the e n t i r e t y of i t s h i s t o r y ,

chosen t h e t r a d i t i o n a l
states,

like

definition.
one

New York,

d e f i n i t i o n of marriage.

Alabama has
Some

other

have more r e c e n t l y chosen t h e new

The U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n does not r e q u i r e

definition

o r the other

because, as t h e Windsor

n o t e d , " [ b ] y h i s t o r y and t r a d i t i o n , " and one s h o u l d

Court

add, by

the t e x t o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , "the d e f i n i t i o n and r e g u l a t i o n

of -marriage . . . has been t r e a t e d as b e i n g w i t h i n the a u t h o r i t y
and r e a l m o f t h e s e p a r a t e S t a t e s . "
at 2689-90.
definition

, 133 S.Ct.

That f a c t does not change s i m p l y because t h e new

of marriage

q u a r t e r s o f t h e country^
federal

U.S. a t

has g a i n e d

ascendancy

i n certain

even i f one of those q u a r t e r s i s t h e

judiciary.

^^According
t o the National
Conference
of
State
L e g i s l a t u r e s , o n l y 11 s t a t e s have a c c e p t e d same-sex m a r r i a g e
as a r e s u l t o f c h o i c e s made by t h e p e o p l e o r t h e i r e l e c t e d
132

1140460
As i t has done f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y two c e n t u r i e s , Alabama
law a l l o w s f o r "marriage" o n l y between one man and one woman.
Alabama p r o b a t e judges have a m i n i s t e r i a l d u t y not t o i s s u e
any m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e c o n t r a r y t o t h i s

law.

N o t h i n g i n the

U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e r s o r o v e r r i d e s t h i s duty.
IV.
The

named respondents

Order
are

ordered to discontinue

i s s u a n c e of m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s t o same-sex c o u p l e s .
and

pursuant

to r e l a t o r

Judge

Enslen's

request

the

Further,
that

this

Court, "by any and a l l l a w f u l means a v a i l a b l e t o i t , " ensure

compliance

w i t h Alabama law w i t h r e s p e c t t o the i s s u a n c e of

m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s , each of the p r o b a t e judges i n t h i s S t a t e

o t h e r than the named respondents and Judge D a v i s a r e j o i n e d as
respondents i n the p l a c e of the "Judge Does" i d e n t i f i e d i n the
petition.
this

W i t h i n f i v e b u s i n e s s days f o l l o w i n g the i s s u a n c e of

order,

each

such

probate

judge

may

file

an

answer

r e s p o n d i n g t o the r e l a t o r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t of mandamus

and showing cause, i f any, why s a i d p r o b a t e judge s h o u l d not

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . The 26 o t h e r s t a t e s t h a t , t o any e x t e n t , now

have same-sex m a r r i a g e do so because i t has been imposed on
them by c o u r t o r d e r {21 of these by f e d e r a l c o u r t s ) ,
See
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriagel a w s . a s p x # l ( l a s t v i s i t e d March 2, 2015; a copy of the Web
page c o n t a i n i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e case f i l e
of the C l e r k of the Alabama Supreme C o u r t ) .
133