Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
1
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES
JAMESOBERGEFELL,ETAL., :
4
5
Petitioners
v.
: No.14556
RICHARDHODGES,DIRECTOR, :
OHIODEPARTMENTOFHEALTH, :
ETAL. :
10
and
11
12
VALERIATANCO,ETAL., :
13
14
Petitioners
v.
: No.14562
15
BILLHASLAM,GOVERNOROF :
16
TENNESSEE,ETAL. :
17
18
and
19
20
APRILDEBOER,ETAL., :
21
22
Petitioners
v.
: No.14571
23
RICKSNYDER,GOVERNOROF :
24
MICHIGAN,ETAL. :
25
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
2
1
and
GREGORYBOURKE,ETAL., :
4
5
Petitioners
v.
: No.14574
STEVEBESHEAR,GOVERNOR :
OFKENTUCKY,ETAL. :
Washington,D.C.
10
Tuesday,April28,2015
11
12
Theaboveentitledmattercameonfororal
13
argumentbeforetheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
14
at11:39a.m.
15
APPEARANCES:
16
DOUGLASHALLWARDDRIEMEIER,ESQ.,Washington,D.C.;on
17
18
behalfofPetitionersonQuestion2.
JOSEPHF.WHALEN,AssociateSolicitorGeneral,
19
Nashville,Tenn.;onbehalfofRespondentson
20
Question2.
21
22
23
24
25
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
3
1
CONTENTS
ORALARGUMENTOF PAGE
DOUGLASHALLWARDDRIEMEIER,ESQ.
OnbehalfofthePetitionersonQuestion2
ORALARGUMENTOF
JOSEPHF.WHALEN,ESQ.
OnbehalfoftheRespondentsonQuestion2
REBUTTALARGUMENTOF
DOUGLASHALLWARDDRIEMEIER,ESQ.
10
OnbehalfofthePetitionersonQuestion2
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AldersonReportingCompany
26
45
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
4
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
3
4
5
(12:29p.m.)
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
We'llnowhearour
argumentonthesecondquestionpresentedinthiscase.
Mr.HallwardDriemeier.
ORALARGUMENTOFDOUGLASHALLWARDDRIEMEIER
ONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONERSONQUESTION2
8
9
10
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Mr.ChiefJustice,
andmayitpleasetheCourt:
TheQuestion2Petitionersarealready
11
married. Theyhaveestablishedthoseenduring
12
relationships,andtheyhavealibertyinterestthatis
13
offundamentalimportancetothesecouplesandtheir
14
children.
15
AStateshouldnotbeallowedtoeffectively
16
dissolvethatmarriagewithoutasufficientlyimportant
17
justificationtodoso.
18
ThesePetitionershavebuilttheirlives
19
aroundtheirmarriages,includingbringingchildreninto
20
theirfamilies,justasoppositesexcoupleshavedone.
21
Butthenonrecognitionlawsunderminethestabilityof
22
thesefamilies,thoughtheStatespurporttosupport
23
justsuchstability.
24
25
JUSTICEALITO:
Iwassomewhatsurprisedby
theargumentsyoumadeinyourbriefbecausetheyare
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
5
1
largelyarepetitionoftheargumentsthatwejustheard
withrespecttoQuestion1.
IthoughtthepointofQuestion2was
whethertherewouldbeaanobligationtorecognizea
samesexmarriageenteredintoinanotherStatewhere
thatislawfuleveniftheStateitself,
constitutionally,doesnotrecognizesamesexmarriage.
Ithoughtthat'sthequestioninQuestion2. IsamI
wrong?
10
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Itisthequestion
11
inQuestion2,andthisCourt'sdecisionsestablishthat
12
thereisnotonlyarighttobemarried,butarightto
13
remainmarried;thatthereisaprotectedliberty
14
interestinthestatusofone'smarriageonceithas
15
beenestablishedunderlaw.
16
JUSTICESCALIA:
Evenevenifthat
17
marriageisisnotlawfulunderunderthe
18
receivingState'slaw;right?
19
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
20
Thereisdefinitely
21
JUSTICESCALIA:
That'sright.
Isthatright? No
22
matterImean,supposewell,let'ssaysomeone
23
getsmarriedinainacountrythatpermitspolygamy.
24
DoesaStatehavetoacknowledgethatmarriage?
25
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
AldersonReportingCompany
Well,ofcourse,
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
6
1
theStatecouldassertjustificationsfornotdoingso,
andIthinktherewouldbejustifications
JUSTICESCALIA:
MR.HALLWARDDREIMEIER:
5
6
Okay. So
fornot
recognizingsuch
JUSTICESCALIA:
whatwouldthe
justificationbe? Thatit'scontrarytotheState's
publicpolicy,Iassume;right?
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Well,no,Your
10
Honor. Ithinkthatthejustificationwouldbethatthe
11
Statedoesn'thavesuchaninstitution. Thea
12
polygamousrelationshipwouldraiseallkindsof
13
questionsthattheState'smarriagelawsdon'taddress.
14
JUSTICESCALIA:
Well,itwouldbethesame
15
16
marriageinthisState,whichweconstitutionallycan
17
havebecausethesecondquestionassumesthatthefirst
18
questioncomesoutthewaytheUnitedStatesdoesnot
19
wantittocomeout,theStatesaysweonlyhavethe
20
institutionofheterosexualmarriage. Wedon'thavethe
21
institutionofsamesexmarriage.
22
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
No. The
23
institutionistheinstitutionofmarriage,andthe
24
experienceofthoseStates
25
JUSTICESCALIA:
Well,you'resayingthat,
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
7
1
buttheStatedoesn't. TheStatesaystheonly
institutionwehaveisheterosexualmarriage.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Thethepoint
I'mmaking,YourHonor,Ithinkisdemonstratedbywhat
hashappenedinthoseStateswhere,bycourtorder,
Stateshavehadtopermitsamesexcouplestomarry.
Allthathashappenedundertheirlawsis
thattheyhavehadtoremovegenderspecificlanguage
andsubstituteitwithgenderneutrallanguage.
10
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Now,couldIcould
11
IbecauseIdon'tifyouwanttofinishanswering
12
JusticeScalia's
13
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Iwasgoingtosay
14
thatthatpluralrelationshipsraiseallmannerof
15
questionsthatarenotaddressedbythisState'scurrent
16
marriagelaws.
17
JUSTICEALITO:
Whatifit'snotaplural
18
relationship? WhatifoneStatesaysthatindividuals
19
canmarryattheageofpuberty? Soa12yearold
20
femalecanmarry. WouldaStatewouldanotherState
21
beobligatedtorecognizethatmarriage?
22
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
IIthink
23
probablynot. ButtheStatewouldhave,inthat
24
instance,asufficientlyimportantinterestin
25
protectingthetrueconsentofthemarriedperson.
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
8
1
AndandmostStatesdon'trecognizeminors'ability
toconsent,certainlynottosomethingthatisas
importantasmarriage.
Butwhatwesee,infact,isthat,quitein
contrasttothenonrecognitionlawsatissuehere,the
Statesdorecognizethemarriagesofpersonwho,byage,
wouldnothavebeenabletomarrywithintheirown
States.
Thatisthelongstandingpracticeofallof
10
theStates,preciselybecauseoftheabomination,asit
11
wasreferredtointheoldtreatises,ofthenotionthat
12
apersonscouldhaveadifferentmaritalstatein
13
somejurisdictionsthanothers.
14
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Sir,howaboutthe
15
cosanguinitysituation? Virtuallyallstateswould
16
recognizecousinsthroughmarriagegettingmarried,but
17
there'satleastoneStatethatdoesn't;right?
18
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
19
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
20
21
Well,I
Areyousayingthatthat
Stateis
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Ithinkthat
22
thethattheconstitutionaltestistheonethatthe
23
CourtsetforthintheZablocki,whichisdoestheState
24
haveasufficientlyimportantinterestnottorecognize
25
it? Andcertainlyinthecaseofincest,theStatedoes
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
9
1
haveasufficientlyimportantinterest.
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
They'renotbiologicallytied.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Thisisnotincest.
Well,theStates
thatI'mawareofthathavetherulesagainstcousin
marriagedosoundertheirinceststatutes,andthey
simplydefineincestinabroadwaythatwouldencompass
cousinstomarry.
Atsomepoint,certainlythefamilial
10
relationshipistooextenuatedthatIdon'tthinkthe
11
Statewouldhaveasufficientlyimportantjustification.
12
JUSTICEKENNEDY:
ButJusticeAlito's
13
questionpointsout,theassumptionofhishypothetical
14
isandandofthewaythesecasesarepresented,
15
isthattheStatedoeshaveasufficientinterestso
16
thatyouneednotallowthemarriagesinthosein
17
thatState.
18
Sothereisasufficientinterest,underour
19
arguendoassumptionhere,totosaythatthisisnot
20
afundamentalright. Butthensuddenly,ifyou'reout
21
ofStateit'sdifferent. WhywhyshouldtheState
22
havetoyield?
23
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Well,atthevery
24
least,youwouldhavetoanalyzedifferentlythe
25
interestthattheStatemightassertfornotallowing
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
10
1
couplestoentermarriageversusthetheinterest
thattheyassertasrelatedtoacouplewhoisalready
married.
Forexample,Kentuckyhasassertedthatits
interestinonlypermittingoppositesexcouplesto
marryistoincreasethebirthrate. Well,nowapply
thattheorytosamesexcoupleswhoarealreadymarried.
TheyarealreadymarriedintheStateswheretheywere
married. TheyarealreadymarriedinhalftheStatesin
10
thecountry.
11
KentuckywouldhavetheCourtbelievethat
12
itisasufficientlyimportantinteresttohavethat
13
coupledisregardtheirexistingmarriagevowsand
14
obligationstoeachothertomarrysomeoneelsein
15
Kentuckyinordertoprocreatebiologicallyeventhough
16
thecouplemayalreadyhavechildrentogether. That,I
17
woulddaresay,isnotarationaljustification,much
18
lessasufficientlyimportantone.
19
JUSTICESCALIA:
Well,IthinkIthink
20
whatKentuckyissayingisthatthelongtermeffectsof
21
havingsamesexcouplesinKentuckywillbe,which
22
youyoudidn'tagreewith,butwhatwhatcounsel
23
forRespondentarguedinthepriorcase,willbeaa
24
reductioninininheterosexualmarriagesanda
25
areductioninthenumberofchildrenborntothose
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
11
1
2
marriages. Imean,that
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
YourHonor,this
Courthasrejectedthattypeofspeculationasabasis
fordrawingthesedistinctionsbeforeasitdidin
Loving.
TheStateinLovingarguedthatitwastoo
soontoknowwhattheeffectofinterracialmarriages
wouldbeandwhatthestigmawouldbeontheirchildren
ifnotthebiological
10
JUSTICESCALIA:
Butwewillnothave
11
rejecteditifwecomeoutthewaythisquestion
12
presentedassumeswehavecomeout.
13
MR.HALLWARDDREIMEIER:
14
JUSTICESCALIA:
15
16
Well,theState
Mainly,sayingthatit's
okayforaStatenottopermitsamesexmarriage.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
TheStateasserts
17
thatithasaninterestinthethestabilitythat
18
marriageprovidesforchildren. Thatinterestdoesnot
19
justifyextinguishingmarriagesthatalreadyexist.
20
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
Mayweclearthisone
21
thing. IfthePetitionerprevailsinthefirstcase,
22
thentheargumentismoot;right?
23
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
24
absolutelyright,YourHonor.
25
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
That'sthat's
Soyouaresupposinga
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
12
1
situationwherethePlaintiffsdonotprevail,andsoa
Statecanretainitsbanonsamesexmarriage.
Thequestionishasdoesithaveto
recognizemarriagefromoutofState? Woulditmakeany
differenceifthecouplecamefromtheStatewherethere
isabanonsamesexmarriage,goestoaneighboring
Statethatallowsit,andthencomesrightbackhome
again?
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
No,YourHonor. I
10
don'tthinkthattherewouldbesuchadistinction.
11
And,infact,noneofthesefourStatesdrawsthatkind
12
oflinethatYourHonorpresupposes. Andthat'soneof
13
thepointsthat'ssoimportanthere,isthatasthe
14
CourtobservedwithrespecttoDOMAinWindsor,the
15
nonrecognitionlawshereareastarkdeparturefromthe
16
State'straditionalpracticeofrecognizingoutofstate
17
marriageseventhoughtheycouldnothavebeen
18
celebratedwithintheState. It'spreciselythat
19
circumstancewherethelawsdivergethattheissue
20
arises.
21
AndthethethreeStatesthathavethis
22
issue,Tennessee,Ohio,andKentucky,are,betweenthem,
23
abletoidentifyonly5instancesinwhichtheydidnot
24
recognizeamarriagethatwasvalidoutsidetheState,
25
eventhoughitcouldnothavebeencelebratedinside.
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
13
1
Andthoseinstancesareincest,whichwethinktheState
wouldhavesufficientlyimportantjustificationnotto
recognize,miscegenationlaws,notaprecedentonwhich
IthinktheCourtwouldwanttorelyinthisinstance,
orotherintereststhatIthinkprobablywouldnot
survivetoday,suchasthetheruleagainstallowing
adivorcedpersontoremarry.
Sothey'reandandmoreimportantly,
themostrecentofthosecasesisfrom1970. Sothe
10
rulethattheStatesciteabouttheirabilityto
11
disregard,toeffectivelydissolvemarriagesthat
12
alreadyexist,aroundwhichpeoplehavealreadybegunto
13
buildtheirlives,islessappliedthantheFederal
14
government'sownauthoritytodefinethe
15
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Yes. But,again,I
16
thinkyou'reavoidingthepresumptiononwhichwe're
17
starting,ontheassumption,whichisthattheState's
18
policyforsamesupportingsamesexmarriageis
19
sufficientlystrong,thattheyaretheycan,asa
20
matterofpublicpolicy,prohibitthatintheirown
21
State. Andyetyou'resayingit'ssomehowsomuch
22
weakerwhenyou'retalkingaboutmarriagesfromother
23
States.
24
25
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
IIthinkthere
areacoupleofpointsthatI'dliketomakeinorderto
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
14
1
distinguishthissituationfromthethequestionin
thefirstcase.
Inthefirstcase,itwasverysignificant
thatRespondents'counselwasemphasizingthathe
thoughtitwasmerelyrationalbasisscrutinythatwould
apply. Butthatwastothequestionofwhetherpeople
shouldbeallowedtomarryinthefirstinstance.
8
9
OurPetitionersonQuestion2arealready
married. WeknowfromWindsor,becausetheCourtheld,
10
thatoncemarried,acouplehasaconstitutionally
11
protectedlibertyinterestintheirmarriage.
12
WealsoknowfromWindsorthatwhereaa
13
sovereigndisregardsthatmarriageinawaythatwould
14
beextraordinaryandoutofcharacterwithtradition,
15
thatthatrequires,attheveryleast,careful
16
consideration. Andthat's
17
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
18
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
19
20
Itcertainly
whatwehave
here.
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Itcertainly
21
underminestheStateinterestthatwewould,assuming
22
arguendo,haverecognizedinthefirstcase,tosaythat
23
theymustwelcomeintheirborderspeoplewhohavebeen
24
marriedelsewhere. It'dsimplybeamatteroftime
25
untiltheywould,ineffect,berecognizingthatwithin
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
15
1
theState.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Well
Becauseweliveina
verymobilesociety,andpeoplemoveallthetime.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Andand
Inotherwords,it
wouldkindofitoneStatewouldbasicallysetthe
policyfortheentirenation.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Well,ofcourse,
10
therewouldbemanyfewersuchcouplesraisingchildren
11
withintheirbordersthanheterosexualcoupleswhoare
12
raisingchildrenwhoarenotbiologicallylinkedto
13
them.
14
IhavetosaythatIthinkthatthe
15
argumentsthattheStatehasmadearesooverand
16
underinclusiveatthesametime,thattheyleavethe
17
thefeelingthatitcanonlybepretext. Andweknow
18
thatthat'strue,becausetheStatenotonlycan'tdraw
19
thelinesthattheyarepurportingto,theydon'tdraw
20
thelinesthatthey'rewouldsuggest,andtheywould
21
neverdrawthelinesthattheyaffordto
22
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Wait. II've
23
lostyouthere. Whatwhatlinesareyoutalking
24
about?
25
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
AldersonReportingCompany
Aline,for
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
16
1
example,thatlimitsmarriagetothosecoupleswhoare
abletoprocreatebiologicallywithoutanyassistance.
TheStatesdon'tdrawthoselines. TheStateshavelaws
thattreatadoptiverelationshipswiththesamelegal
effectasbiologicalones. Theyactuallyhavelawsthat
furthersupportandandgivegreaterstability
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
11
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
13
tomarriages
thatuse
10
12
Ithoughtyour
yourargument
assisted
reproduction.
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
wouldbedifferent.
14
IthoughtthattheStateshadnevercategoricallypassed
15
alawdeclaringthataparticularkindofmarriagewas
16
againstpublicpolicy.
17
18
19
20
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Thatthatis
certainlyanotherwayinwhich
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Nooneofthefour
Stateshadeverdonethat?
21
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
22
neverdonethat. They'venever
23
24
25
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Theytheyhave
UntiltheDOMAissue
cameup.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
AldersonReportingCompany
Thatthat
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
17
1
theselawsareareoutofcharacter,unprecedentedin
thelanguageofRomerinmanyrespects.
JUSTICEALITO:
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
JUSTICEALITO:
You'resayingthat
Well,they
You'resayingthatthelaws
insomeStates,theStatesthatyou'rereferringtothat
recognizeonlyoppositesexmarriagearepretextual?
8
9
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Thethetheir
theirnonrecognitionlawsarepretextual,yes,
10
becausethelongstandingpracticeoftheseStatesisto
11
recognizemarriagesthatarevalidlycelebrated
12
elsewherepreciselybecauseof
13
JUSTICEALITO:
14
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
15
16
Well
the
fundamental
JUSTICEALITO:
otherthanthe
17
distinctionwehavethedistinctionbetweensamesex
18
marriageandoppositesexmarriage. Whatisthenext
19
mostdramaticvariationthatexistsinthemarriagelaws
20
oftheStates?
21
22
23
24
25
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Well,atthetime,
certainlyinterracialmarriagewhen
JUSTICEALITO:
Atthepresenttime,what
is
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
AldersonReportingCompany
Well
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
18
1
2
3
JUSTICEALITO:
mostthenextmost
dramaticdifference?
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Well,IIthink
that,ifIcould,thetheantimiscegenationlaws
actuallyaretheclosestanalogy,butwhat'sdifferent
betweenthem,ifIcouldbecauseitgoestoJustice
Sotomayor'squestion,andthenI'lltrytoanswer
yoursis
JUSTICEALITO:
Wellwell,Ihadaskeda
10
simplequestion. Atthepresenttime,whatisthenext
11
mostdramaticvariationinthemarriagelawsofthe
12
States?
13
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
14
JUSTICEALITO:
15
16
Itprobablyisage.
Andwhatisthewhat
what'stherange?
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
ThetheI
17
thinkitgoesfrom13to18. AndbutbutasI
18
saidbefore,thetraditionoftheStatestheissue
19
doesnotcomeupthatmuch,butthetraditionofthe
20
Statesistorecognizeamarriagethatwasenteredinto
21
bysomeoneofanagethatcouldnothavebeenentered
22
withintheState,becauseofthenatureofthemarriage
23
onceit'sestablished,recognizingthatthefundamental
24
natureofthatrelationshipisnotonethattheState
25
shouldputasunder.
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
19
1
JUSTICEALITO:
Well,Ithoughtyouanswered
meearlierthataStatecouldrefusetorecognizea
marriageincontractedinanotherStatewherethe
minimumagewaspuberty.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Well,theythey
could,andIdobelievethatif,intheindividualcase,
itwasshownthatitwasbecauseoflackofconsent,
thetheStatecoulddecidenottorecognizethe
marriage. Butwithrespecttothecategoricalnature
10
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
Itwouldhavetobe
11
shown,Ithink,thepresumptionwouldbeinsucha
12
Statethatsomeoneage13can'tconsent.
13
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Theage13,Ithink
14
probablyyou'reright,butifitisamatterof15
15
insteadof16,thatthecourtsprobablywouldrecognize
16
it,especiallyif,inrelianceontheirmarriage,the
17
thecouplehadalreadyconceivedofachild,itwoulddo
18
nooneanygoodtodestroythatmarriageandthestable
19
environmentthatitmightprovideforthechildren,just
20
asitdoesnooneanygooditcertainlydoesn't
21
advancetheinterestsofthechildrenofoppositesex
22
couplestodestroythemarriagesthatprovidestability
23
tothechildrenofsamesexcoupleswhoarealready
24
marriedunderthelawsofotherStates.
25
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
AldersonReportingCompany
Ithinkyouryour
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
20
1
argumentisprettymuchtheexactoppositeofthe
argumentofthePetitionersinthepriorcase. The
argumentthatwaspresentedagainstthemis,youcan't
dothis,we'veneverdonethisbefore,recognized
samesexmarriage.
Andnowyou'resaying,well,theycan'tnot
recognizesamesexmarriagesbecausethey'venevernot
recognizedmarriagesbeforethatwerelawfullyperformed
inotherStates.
10
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
11
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
12
13
Well,what
You'vegottodecide
oneortheotherifyouwin.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
No,Idon'tthink
14
soatatall,YourHonor. AndandIthinkthat
15
what'swhat'sessentialandcommonbetweenusisthat
16
werecognizethatthemarriagethatourPetitionershave
17
enteredintoisamarriage. Itisthatsame
18
institution,thatsamemostimportantrelationshipof
19
one'slifethatthisCourthasheldoutas
20
fundamental
21
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
22
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
23
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Andmaybe
inothercases.
I'mjust
24
repeatingmyself,butweonlygettothesecondquestion
25
ifyou'velostonthatpointalready,ifwe'vesaid
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
21
1
Statesdonothavetorecognizesamesexmarriageasa
marriage.
Soassumingyou'velostonthat,Idon'tsee
howyourargumentgetsyoucan'tsaythattheyare
nottreatingthemarriageasamarriagewhentheydon't
havetodothatinthefirstplace.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Well,IIthink
thatthatactuallyhighlightsoneoftheproblemsof
tryingtodecidethethetwocasesdifferently,
10
because,ofcourse,decidingagainstPetitionerson
11
Question1,eveniftheCourtdecidesinfavorof
12
PetitionersonQuestion2,wouldforeverrelegatethose
13
marriagestosecondclassstatusandwouldraiseall
14
kindsofquestionswhetherthosemarriagescouldbe
15
subjectedtolawsthatarenotquitesofavorableas
16
opposite
17
18
19
20
JUSTICESCALIA:
You'rerearguingQuestion1
now? Isthatisthatwhatyou'redoing?
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
suggesting,though
21
JUSTICESCALIA:
22
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Ithoughtyouwere.
thatevenawin
23
onQuestion2doesnotfullyvalidateourPetitioners'
24
marriages,butcertainlywethinkthattheStatecannot
25
disregardthemcannoteffectivelydissolveexisting
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
22
1
marriageswithoutasufficientlyimportantreasonfor
doingso.
ThisCourtrecognizedintheLawrencecase
thatmarriage,procreation,familyrelationships,
childrearingarefundamentalaspectsofautonomythat
samesexcouplescanenterinto,canchooseforpurposes
ofautonomytothesameextentasoppositesexcouples,
especiallywhenthosecoupleshavedoneso,have
establishedamarriage,havebroughtchildreninto
10
I'dliketogiveanexample,ifIcould,becauseIthink
11
thatitsortofbringshomewhat'sreallyhappening.
12
MatthewMansellandJohnoEspejomarriedin
13
Californiain2008. In2009,theyadoptedtwochildren.
14
Now,inrelianceontheprotectionthatisaffordedby
15
marriage,Mr.Espejowaswillingtogiveuphisjobto
16
givetheprimarycaregiveroftheirchildren.
17
Mr.Mansellistheprimarybreadwinner. Hisjobinan
18
internationallawfirmwastransferredfromCalifornia
19
toTennessee,andthecostofthattransferforthatjob
20
forthemwasthedestructionoftheirfamily
21
relationships,allthattheyhadreliedoninbuilding
22
theirlivestogether.
23
Andinsupportofthat,theStatesoffer
24
exactlynothing. ThereisnoreasonthattheState
25
needstodisregardthatmarriage. NoreasontheState
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
23
1
needstodestroythereliancethatMr.Espejohashadin
givinguphiscareertolookaftertheirchildren. They
aredoingeverything
JUSTICESCALIA:
Itwouldhavebeenit
wouldhavebeentheargumentmadewithrespecttothe
firstquestion;namely,thattheexistenceofsamesex
marriageserodes,erodesthethefeelingofsociety
regardingheterosexualmarriages.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
AsIsaidasI
10
saidbefore,YourHonor,IIdon'tthinkthatthat
11
holdsupbecauseoppositesexcoupleswhohaveno
12
children,whomaybebeyondchildbearingyears,when
13
theymoveintotheseStates,theirmarriagesare
14
entitledtorespect,andyettheyaresituatedprecisely
15
asourPetitionersare. Ourcouples,likewise,have
16
marriages. Theymaynotbeabletoprocreate
17
biologicallytogether,buttheyareabletoprocreate
18
throughassistedmeans,throughadoption. Theybring
19
childrenintotheirfamiliesjustasoppositesex
20
couplesdo. Andwhen,inrelianceontheirownState
21
wheretheylive,theymoveintotheseStates,that
22
marriageisdestroyed.
23
ThisCourtreliedonFederalism,the
24
verticalkind,inWindsortoidentifysomethingthatwas
25
highlyunusual. Inthiscase,it'shorizontal
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
24
1
Federalism,Ithink,thatidentifiessomethingthat's
highlyunusual. AspartofaFederalformofgovernment
inwhichtheStatesareequal,theStateshaveceded
someformoftheirauthority. Andoneistoto
recognizethatwhenanotherStatecreatesanenduring
relationship,encouragespeopleto,inrelianceonthe
protectionsthelawaffords,toestablishfamilies,that
itisnotthatotherStatesaresimplyfreetodisregard
thatwhichthoseStateshavecreated.
10
Inthecorporatecontext,onceacorporation
11
isestablishedunderthelawsofoneState,that
12
corporationexistsinallotherStates. Certainly,the
13
familiesthatourPetitionershaveestablishedare
14
entitledtoatleastthatsamerespect.
15
Ithinkthat,YourHonor,itisquite
16
interestingtonotethatinthefirstargument,Michigan
17
wasforcedtoarguesomepositionsthatIthinkare
18
quiteastonishing,thattheStatecouldlimitmarriage
19
tocoupleswhoarecapableofprocreationwithout
20
assistanceorindeed,thatitcouldabolishmarriage
21
altogether.
22
It'sourclientswhotakemarriage
23
seriously. Theytookvowstoeachotherandboughtinto
24
aninstitutionthat,indeed,asthisCourthassaid,
25
predatestheBillofRights,thatisthemostimportant
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
25
1
andfundamentalintheirlives,andtheStateshould
offersomethingmorethanmerepretextasgroundto
destroyit.
4
5
6
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
TheState'srationaleis
wewetreatoutsidersthesamewaywetreatinsiders.
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Well,thankyou,
YourHonor. Theytheycertainlyhaveofferedthat,
butwhattheStateignoresisthatthesesocalled
outsidersarealreadymarried. TheState,it'strue,
10
says,well,wehavesamesexcouplesinourState,and
11
wedon'tallowthemtomarry,sowe'regoingtoto
12
treatyouthesameway.
13
Well,theyignorethatourclientshave
14
alreadyformedthoserelationships,andIthinkthatit
15
wouldbe,intermsoftheintereststhatdistinguish
16
betweenthetwoquestions,it'sit'shelpfultothink
17
again,perhaps,aboutheterosexualcouples. Wedon't
18
thinkthataStatecouldlimitmarriagetoonlythose
19
coupleswhoarecapableofprocreation. Wedon'tthink
20
itcouldprecludemarriagebywomenwhoare55,butit
21
wouldbequiteadifferentanddistinctconstitutional
22
violationfortheStatetodissolvethemarriagesof
23
oppositesexcoupleswhenthewomanreaches55.
24
25
Idon'tthinkthatthat'sconstitutionally
permissible. TheStatesdon'tdothatand,ofcourse,
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
26
1
theyneverwoulddothat,becausetheessential
protectionagainstarbitrarylawsisthatthemajority
hastoliveunderthesamelawsthattheywouldsubject
theminorityto. Andthereisnochancethatthe
majoritywouldsubjectthemselvestosuchalawasthat.
6
7
I'dliketoreservetheremainderofmy
time.
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Mr.Whalen.
10
11
12
13
14
Thankyou,counsel.
ORALARGUMENTOFJOSEPHF.WHALEN
ONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENTSONQUESTION2
MR.WHALEN:
Mr.ChiefJustice,andmayit
pleasetheCourt:
TheFourteenthAmendmentdoesnotrequire
15
Stateswithtraditionalmarriagelawstorecognize
16
marriagesfromotherStatesbetweentwopersonsofthe
17
samesex.
18
JUSTICESCALIA:
WhataboutArticleIV? I'm
19
sogladtobeabletoquoteaportionofthe
20
Constitutionthatactuallyseemstoberelevant. "Full
21
faithandcreditshallbegivenineachStatetothe
22
publicacts,records,andjudicialproceedingsofevery
23
otherState." Now,whydoesn'tthatapply?
24
25
MR.WHALEN:
YourHonor,thisCourt'scases
havemadeclearthattheCourtdrawsadistinction
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
27
1
betweenjudgmentsbetweenStatesandthelawsofeach
State. AndthereasoninpartthattheCourt's
decisionshavesaidthatisthatotherwise,eachState
wouldbeabletoessentiallylegislateforeveryother
State.
6
7
8
9
10
11
JUSTICESCALIA:
Publicacts? Itwould
includetheactofmarryingpeople,Iassume.
MR.WHALEN:
Myunderstandingofthis
Court'sdecisionsasthereferenceintheConstitution
topublicactsisthateachState'slaws.
JUSTICESCALIA:
Sotherethere'snothing
12
intheConstitutionthatrequiresaStatetoacknowledge
13
eventhosemarriagesinotherStatesthatthatare
14
thesame.
15
16
MR.WHALEN:
That'sessentiallycorrect,
YourHonor.
17
JUSTICESCALIA:
18
MR.WHALEN:
Really?
UnderthisCourt'sdecisions,
19
that'sthat'sessentiallyright. Therehasbeen
20
underthejurisprudencewithregardtoAllstate
21
InsuranceandAlaskaPackersandsoforththat
22
there'sthere'saminimaldueprocessrequirementto
23
declinetoapplyanotherState'ssubstantivelaw.
24
25
JUSTICESCALIA:
Wewecansaytheonly
marriagesweacknowledgeininNewYorkaremarriages
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
28
1
concludedinNewYork;isthatpossible?
MR.WHALEN:
JUSTICESCALIA:
I'msorry? Idon't
NewYorkcansaytheonly
marriagesweacknowledgeinNewYorkarethosemarriages
thathavebeenmadeunderthelawsofNewYork.
MR.WHALEN:
JUSTICESCALIA:
MR.WHALEN:
9
10
11
12
13
14
Yes,YourHonor.
Really?
IfI'munderstandingyourif
I'munderstandingyourquestioncorrectly.
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Whatcaseisthat?
Whatcasewouldyoucitetosupportthatproposition?
MR.WHALEN:
I'mnotsureifIunderstood
thequestioncorrectly,YourHonor.
JUSTICEBREYER:
HesaidImean,I
15
alreadyhaveseveralcasestoread. Imightaswellget
16
anotherone.
17
(Laughter.)
18
JUSTICEBREYER:
Whatwhatisthecase
19
thatholdsthattheStateofNewYorkhastherightto
20
recognizeonlymarriagesmadeinNewYork? Andwhen
21
ifyoumarryinVirginia,NewYorkhasthe
22
constitutionalrighttosay,wetreatyouasifyou
23
weren'tmarried,whoeveryouare.
24
25
MR.WHALEN:
IdidIdidmisunderstand
thequestion. Myunderstandingofthequestionwas
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
29
1
whetherNewYorkcoulddeclinetorecognizean
outofstatemarriagethatdidnotcomportwithNew
York'slaw.
JUSTICESCALIA:
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
That'snotwhatIsaid.
Becauseitisclearthat
ifthelawofthetwoStatesisthesame,thatwasused
againstFedder,theStatecannotsaywewon'tapplythe
otherState'slaw,eventhoughit'sthesameasourown.
9
10
MR.WHALEN:
Eventhoughit'sthesameas
ours?
11
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
12
JUSTICEBREYER:
Yes.
LikeNewYork. For
13
example,IhappentoknowhasalawthataFederaljudge
14
fromWashingtoncouldn'tmarrysomeone. Imean,youcan
15
getmarriedtoyourownwife,etcetera,butyoucan't
16
marrytwootherpeople,buttheDistrictofColumbiahas
17
theoppositelaw. SoifImarrytwopeoplein
18
WashingtonD.C.andtheyhappentomovetoNewYork,you
19
aresayingthatNewYorkdoesn'thavetorecognizethat
20
marriagebecauseitdoesn'tcomportwiththemarriageof
21
NewYork;isthatyourpoint?
22
23
24
25
MR.WHALEN:
Yes,YourHonor. Ithink
that's
JUSTICEBREYER:
Andthenwhatcasesays
that? Ithinkthereareafewpeoplegoingtoget
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
30
1
nervousaboutthis.
(Laughter.)
MR.WHALEN:
Mymyanswerisbasedon
essentiallythisCourt'sdecisioninNevadav.Hall,
becausetheState'sownlawsetsitsownpolicyandthe
otherState'slawwouldbeinconflictwiththatState's
policy.
8
9
JUSTICEBREYER:
Butherethepolicywould
bewedistrustFederaljudgesfromoutsidetheState.
10
Andeventhat,theywouldgetawaywith,inyourview,
11
becauseI'mnextgoingtoask,andwhatisthe
12
differencebetweenthatkindofpolicyandthepolicy
13
thatsays,well,wedon'trecognizethegaycouple's
14
marriageforthereasonthatwefearthatifgaycouples
15
getmarried,eveniftheyhavechildrenandadoptthem,
16
andevenifweallowpeoplewhoarenotgaytoget
17
marriedandtheydon'thavechildren,despiteallthat,
18
thispolicy,whichI'vehadalittletrouble
19
understanding,warrantsnotrecognizingit? Didyou
20
followthatquestion? Itwasalittlecomplicated.
21
MR.WHALEN:
IIprobablydidnot,but
22
I'mgoingtotrytoanswer. IIthinktheunderlying
23
focusisnotjustthatthere'sapolicy,butthat
24
there'salegitimatepolicy. AndasthisCourt's
25
questionsearlierindicated,Iproceednowonthe
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
31
1
assumptionthattheCourthasdecidedthefirstquestion
intheState'sfavor,andisdeterminedthat,indeed,
theState'spolicytomaintainatraditionalmanwoman
definitionofmarriageis,indeed,legitimate,andwe
obviouslyagreethatitis,andtheCourtshouldso
decide. So
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
JUSTICESCALIA:
Soyoudon'tsee
Butnoneofthishas
anythingtodowithArticleIV,right? Noneofthishas
10
anythingtodowithArticleIV? Fullfaithandcredit,
11
right?
12
MR.WHALEN:
Itfullfaithandcredit
13
providesthebackgroundforthefortheStatestobe
14
abletoassertthat,indeed,wehavetherightto
15
declinetorecognizetheoutofstatemarriagebasedon
16
theoutofstate
17
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
18
MR.WHALEN:
19
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
You're
law
You'remakinga
20
distinctionbetweenjudgmentsfullfaithandcredit
21
appliestojudgments. Youcan'trejectajudgmentfrom
22
asisterStatebecauseyoufinditoffensivetoyour
23
policy,but
24
MR.WHALEN:
25
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
Yes,YourHonor.
fullfaithandcredit
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
32
1
hasneverbeeninterpretedtoapplytochoiceoflaw.
MR.WHALEN:
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
4
5
Yes,YourHonor.
Thatthat'sthe
distinction.
MR.WHALEN:
Yes,YourHonor. Andand
so,ininessence,bydecidingwhetherornotto
recognizeanotherState'smarriage,thetheStateis
decidingwhetherornottorecognizetheotherState's
lawunderwhichthatmarriagewasperformed.
10
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
I'msorry. Youdon't
11
seeafundamentaldifferencebetweencreatingamarriage
12
andrecognizingamarriage? Youdon'tthinkthere'sany
13
differenceintermsoftherightsofpeople? IfStates
14
regularlydon'tsaythattheprerequisitestomarriage
15
inourStatearenotnecessarilyagainstpublic
16
policyandtheyhavesaiditforagedifferences,
17
theyhavesaiditforalotofthings,whywhywould
18
thegaymarriageissuebesofundamentalthatthatcan
19
leadthemtoexcludeawholecategoryofpeoplefrom
20
recognition?
21
MR.WHALEN:
Itgoes,YourHonor,tothe
22
essenceofwhatIthink,infact,bothbothquestions
23
beforetheCourttodaygetat. Andthatisthatthe
24
fundamentalnotionofwhatmarriageis. Andandlet
25
meanswerthequestion,ifIcould,inthisway. The
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
33
1
thecomparisonbetweenhowStateshaveoperatedwith
regardtorecognizingornotrecognizingmarriages
before,inotherwords,beforetherewasanyideaof
samesexmarriage,can'tbecomparedatalltohow
Statesarerespondingacrosstheboardwithregardto
thephenomenonofsamesexmarriage.
Andhere'sthereason:
Commentatorshave
observedthatwhenallStatesareonthesamepageabout
whatmarriageis,that'swheretheplaceofcelebration
10
ruleevolvedfrom,thateveryStatehadthesame
11
definition. EveryStatesharedthesameinterest,and
12
sotherewasaliberalpolicyofrecognizingmarriages
13
fromoneStatetotheotherbecause
14
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
15
JUSTICESCALIA:
16
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
17
That'sjustnot
decreesarecloserto
laws?
18
MR.WHALEN:
19
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
20
Youthinkmarriage
I'msorry?
Youthinkmarriage
decreesareclosertolawsthantheyaretojudgments?
21
MR.WHALEN:
22
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Ido
Imean,youneedtoget
23
ajudgmenttodivorce. AndIthinkthat,inmymind,
24
thatmakesthedecreemuchclosertoajudgmentthanit
25
doestoalaw.
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
34
1
MR.WHALEN:
IIthinkthatthethe
performingofamarriageisclosertolawisbecause,in
essence,whenthemarriageisperformed,alltherights
thatflowfromthatState'slawsevolvetothatcouple.
Andit'sdifferentthanjudgmentsandsodoesnot
deservethesamekindoftreatmentthatjudgmentswould,
underthefullfaithandcreditjurisprudence,because
ofthereasonthatthisCourtdrawnthatdistinction.
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
10
undertheConstitution,or
11
MR.WHALEN:
12
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
13
14
Sowhatisanorder
I
anactunderthe
Constitutionthat'snotajudgment?
MR.WHALEN:
Ididn'tcatchthefirstpart
15
ofyourquestion,YourHonor.
16
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Howdoyouseparateout
17
thetermsthatJusticeScaliagaveyou? They'renotall
18
judgments.
19
MR.WHALEN:
20
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
21
22
23
No. II
Threedifferentterms
wereused,orfourdifferenttermswereused.
MR.WHALEN:
Acts,records,andjudicial
proceedingsiswhatIunderstand
24
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
25
MR.WHALEN:
Acts
whatIrecallandthat
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
35
1
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
MR.WHALEN:
records
Andmyunderstandingofthe
Court'sjurisprudencehasbeenthatthatreferstolaws
andrecordsandjudgmentsofanotherState. And
marriageshavealwaysbeentreatedasaconflictoflaw
matterthroughoutalltheyearsinfact,itit
givesrisetotheentireconflictoflawdoctrineon
onwhichPetitionersrelyhere,whichisJosephStory's
CommentariesCommentariesontheConflictofLaws.
10
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Thissecond
11
outsideofthepresentcontroversy,whenwasthelast
12
timeTennesseedeclinedtorecognizeamarriagefromout
13
ofstate?
14
MR.WHALEN:
15
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
16
MR.WHALEN:
Anymarriage,YourHonor?
Anymarriage.
1970isthelastonethatI
17
couldpointto. Thatinvolvedastepfatherand
18
stepdaughter.
19
IwouldIwouldhastentoadd,though,
20
becauseofwherewhatIwasstartingtodescribewith
21
regardtohowwegottothispoint,whilewhile
22
Stateswereallplayingalongunderthesamedefinition
23
ofmarriage,whattheyconfrontedinanunprecedented
24
fashionwassomeStateschangingtherulesofthegame,
25
ifIcanextendthemetaphor,andso
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
36
1
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Well,butthey
weren'tplayingalongwiththesamedefinition. There
havealwaysbeendistinctionsbasedonageandfamily
relationship. Sotheyweren'tplayingalongunderthe
samedefinition. Andstill,despitethat,itapparently
isquiterareforaStatenottorecognizean
outofstatemarriage.
MR.WHALEN:
Ititwasandisquiterare,
solongaswe'retalkingaboutwhatmarriageis,solong
10
aswe'retalkingaboutthefundamentalmanandwoman
11
marriage. Andthatandthat'smypoint,isthatas
12
soonasStateswereconfrontedwiththerealitythat
13
someStatesweregoingtoredefinemarriageorexpand
14
thedefinitionofmarriagetoincludesamesexcouples
15
forthefirsttime,thenit'sunsurprisingthatthey
16
woulddetermine,inkeepingwiththeirownlaws,that
17
theywouldnotrecognizethoseotherStates'marriages
18
ininTennessee.
19
JUSTICEALITO:
Thissecondquestionputs
20
bothyouandMr.HallwardDriemeierinaveryunusual
21
situation,because,firstofall,wehavetoassumethat
22
thisfirstquestionhasbeendecidedagainstthe
23
Petitioner,orwewouldn'tgettothesecondquestion.
24
Sowehavetoassumethatwewouldholdthat
25
aStatehasasufficientreasonforlimitingmarriageto
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
37
1
oppositesexcouples. AndMr.HallwardDriemeier
acknowledgedthataStatecouldrefusetorecognizean
outofstatemarriageifithasaverystrongpublic
policyagainstthatmarriage,ifit'sapolygamous
marriage,ifit'saamarriageofveryyoung
individuals.
Sothequestioniswhethertherecouldbe
somethinginbetween. Sotherethere'saa
sufficientreasontofortheStatetosay,we'renot
10
goingtogranttheselicensesourselves,butnota
11
strongenoughreasonforusnottorecognizeamarriage
12
performedoutofstate. Isupposethat'spossible,
13
isn'tit?
14
MR.WHALEN:
Well,letmeansweritthis
15
way,andhopefullyI'llI'mansweringyourquestion
16
17
justificationsthathavegrownovertimeandthe
18
requirementforastrongpublicpolicyreasontodecline
19
torecognizeamarriagehavegrownuparoundthe
20
manwomandefinition.
21
Ourpositionisthatsolongaswe're
22
talkingaboutamarriagefromanotherStatethatisnot
23
themanwomandefinition,thatitissimplytheState's
24
interestinmaintainingacohesiveandacoherent
25
internalStatepolicywithregardtomarriagethat
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
38
1
2
justifiesnotrecognizingthosemarriages.
Otherwise,asasthequestionthatwas
putearlierindicated,anyresidentoftheStatecould
gotoanotherState,getmarried,comebackanddemand
tohavetheirtheirmarriagerecognized.
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Thathappensalready.
Peoplewhoarenotpermittedtobemarriedinalotof
Statesgoanddothat,andtheycomebacktotheirhome
States,andthehomeStatesfollowtheruleofmarriage
10
11
celebration.
MR.WHALEN:
Andand,again,we're
12
talkingaboutthefundamentaldistinctionbetween
13
marriageastheStatesseeit,thetraditional
14
definition,andthesamesexmarriagesthatother
15
Stateshave
16
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
17
MR.WHALEN:
18
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Well,theyhave
haveadopted.
Theprerequisitesare
19
alwaysaState'sjudgmentaboutmarriage,aboutwhat
20
shouldbearecognizedmarriage.
21
MR.WHALEN:
22
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
23
MR.WHALEN:
But,YourHonor,thethe
Theymakeexceptions.
thedifferencehere,I
24
think,isisthethelandscapethatwefind
25
ourselvesin. Tennessee,Ohio,Kentucky,andother
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
39
1
Stateswithatraditionaldefinitionofmarriagehave
donenothingherebutstandpat. Theyhavemaintained
thestatusquo. AndyetotherStateshavemadethe
decision,anditcertainlyistheirrightand
prerogativetodoso,toexpandthedefinition,to
redefinethedefinition,andthentosuggestthatother
Statesthathavedonenothingbutstandpatnowmust
recognizethosemarriagesimposesasubstantialburden
ontheState'sabilitytoselfgovern.
10
JUSTICEGINSBURG:
Itisitisodd,isn't
11
it,thatadivorcedoesbecomethedecreeforthe
12
nation? AdivorcewithproperjurisdictioninoneState
13
mustberecognizedbyeveryotherState,butnottheact
14
ofmarriage.
15
MR.WHALEN:
IIunderstandthepoint,
16
YourHonor,and,again,Ithinkitfallswithinthe
17
Court'srecognitionofadistinctionbetweenjudgments
18
andlaws. AndhereIthinkwe'redealingonlywith
19
laws,and,again,itwouldallowoneStateinitially
20
literallyoneState,andnow,aminorityofStatesto
21
legislatefundamentalStateconcernaboutmarriagefor
22
everyotherStatequiteliterally. That'sthat'san
23
enormousimpositionandanintrusionupontheState's
24
abilitytodecideforitselfimportantpublicpolicy
25
questionsandtomaintainparticularlywhenyou're
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
40
1
talkingaboutrecognition. Therethereisanimpact
thatoccurswhenoneStateisaskedtorecognizeanother
State'ssamesexmarriagebecauseofthefactthatits
entiredomesticrelationspolicyhasbeenbuiltaround
theexpectationandthepresumptionthatthereisa
manwomanrelationship. ThatinWindsor,thisCourt
recognizedandobservedthatmarriageisthefoundation
oftheState'sabilitytoregulatedomesticrelations.
Andtogiveyouoneconcreteexamplethat
10
isthatitcomesupinthiscaseitself. Oneofthe
11
incidentsofmarriageisthechildthepresumptionof
12
parentagethatcomeswithamarriage. AndfortheState
13
toberequiredtorecognizeanotherState'smarriage
14
wherethereisachildofthatmarriageinasamesex
15
situationwouldfundamentallyaltertheState's
16
definitionofparentage,whichIcantellyou
17
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Well,Idon't
18
understandyourargument. Iunderstandyourargument
19
thatit'safundamentalpublicpolicyquestionabout
20
whetheryou'regoingtorecognizesamesexmarriageor
21
not. ButIdon'tseethedifficultyinfollowingthe
22
consequencesofthatunderdomesticrelationslawas
23
treatingacoupleasmarried. Anditandsothe
24
firstquestionisabigstep,butafterthat,itseems
25
tomethatthequestionofhowyouapplythedomestic
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
41
1
2
relationslawisprettystraightforward.
MR.WHALEN:
Well,itthat'spartofthe
reasonwhyIwantedtomentionthisinparticular
becausealargepartofthePetitioners'focushasbeen
ontheimpactonthechildrenthatareinvolved.
AndandIthinkit'simportantfortheCourtto
recognizethatinmanyStatesandIcantellyouin
Tennesseethatthedefinitionofparenthasalwaysbeen
biologicallybased. Thatmaritalpresumptionof
10
parentagehasitsfoundationinbiology. Ithasits
11
foundationinthemanwomanrelationship.
12
SowhenandifaStatewererequiredto
13
recognizeasamesexmarriageandsotherefore,change
14
thepronounsandchangetheterminologytoapply
15
16
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
adoptions. What'swhat'stheproblem?
17
MR.WHALEN:
18
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
19
20
Oh,butyoudothatfor
Because
Thisthisisareally
bigdeal?
MR.WHALEN:
Ititisabigdeal,Your
21
Honor,becauseyouarechangingthewaytheState
22
definesaparent. Andintheadoptioncontext,youhave
23
tounderstandadoptionandthetraditionaldefinition
24
ofofmarriage,theyworkintandem. Theywork
25
together. AndasMr.Burschdescribed,theobjective
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
42
1
withregardtomarriageistolinkchildrenwiththeir
biologicalparents. Whenthatbreaksdown,thenthere's
adoption. Andsoyes,there'saneffortto
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Doyouthinkthata
Statecanfailtorecognizethebirthcertificateofa
particularanotherState?
MR.WHALEN:
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
9
10
I'mnot
Justthat. Doyouthink
theword"records"intheConstitutionincludesbirth
certificates?
11
MR.WHALEN:
12
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Yes.
SoCaliforniawithout
13
anyreason,nosuspicionoffraud,noanything,couldit
14
refusetorecognizeanotherState'sbirthcertificate?
15
16
17
18
19
MR.WHALEN:
IIhavetoadmit,Your
Honor,IIcan'tspeaktothatintelligently.
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Recordstomehasto
haveameaning.
MR.WHALEN:
Recordhasameaning. Itdoes,
20
YourHonor. ThereasonthatI'mhesitantisthatIknow
21
thattherethereisdisagreementintheinthe
22
casesaboutexactlywhattheimpactofthatisbetween
23
whetherthatjustmeanswehavetoacknowledgethe
24
existenceoftherecordfortheevidentiarypurposes,or
25
whethertheeffectoftherecordhastobeacknowledged.
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
43
1
2
3
AndasIstandhereIcan'tspeaktoit.
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Irecognizethatthat's
anissue.
MR.WHALEN:
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
Yes,YourHonor.
Butifabirth
certificateweretobearecord,don'tyouthinka
marriagecertificateit'sanofficialactofaState.
8
9
MR.WHALEN:
Well,thethemarriage
certificate
10
JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
11
MR.WHALEN:
Asarecord.
certifiesandIguessit
12
goesexactlytothepoint. Itcertifiesthefactthat
13
therewasamarriage. Ithinkthatthelawsthat
14
allowedthatmarriagetooccur,whentheyaredifferent
15
fundamentallywiththelawsofaStatelikeTennessee,
16
precludetheapplicationofthatsameprinciplefromone
17
Statetotheother.
18
Withregardtotheeffectofrequiring
19
recognitiononaState,Ithinkit'simportantalsoto
20
considerthefactthatthePetitionershavecomplained
21
abouttheimpactthatithaswhentheymovefromone
22
Statetothenextwithregardtotherightsthatthey
23
enjoyedunderthemarriageasitwasdefinedinNew
24
York,forexample,orCalifornia.
25
Federalismaccommodatesthissituation.
AldersonReportingCompany
It
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
44
1
isthestrengthofourFederalstructuretoaccommodate
theverydifferenceofviewpointandtheverydifference
inapproachthatthisfundamentaldebatethatwe're
havingaboutsamesexmarriagegenerates. Andsoit
makesallthesenseintheworld,withrespecttothat,
toallowtheFederalstructuretodowhatitwas
designedtodoandtoaccommodatethosedifferentpoints
ofview. AndthatiswhyweaskedtheCourtto
determinethattheFourteenthAmendmentdoesnotcomein
10
andthendisruptthatbalanceandimposeadutyonone
11
Statetorecognizethelawsandrecognizethemarriage
12
ofadifferentStatebecauseoftheintrusionthatit
13
wouldhaveonthatState'spublicpolicy.
14
15
JUSTICEKAGAN:
Mr.Whalen,justaquick
question.
16
MR.WHALEN:
17
JUSTICEKAGAN:
Yes,YourHonor.
Youyouacknowledgethat
18
iftheStatelosesonthefirstquestion,thentheState
19
alsolosesonthesecondquestion? It'safortiori?
20
That's
21
MR.WHALEN:
22
JUSTICEKAGAN:
23
MR.WHALEN:
24
25
Ido,YourHonor.
Okay.
Yes,YourHonor. Ifthereare
nofurtherquestions,weaskyoutoaffirm.
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
AldersonReportingCompany
Thankyou,counsel.
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
45
1
MR.WHALEN:
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
Thankyou.
Mr.HallwardDriemeier,youhavefiveminutesleft.
REBUTTALARGUMENTOFDOUGLASHALLWARDDRIEMEIER
5
6
7
8
9
ONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONERSONQUESTION2
MR.HALLWARDDRIEMEIER:
Thankyou,Your
Honor.
IfImaystartwiththeassertionthat
Tennesseelawhasalwaysrootedparentalrelationsin
10
biology,thatisnotso. TennesseelawandI'mgoing
11
toquotefromchapter361.1.Imeansorry. It's
12
68.3.306referredtoonpage15ofourreply. It
13
providesthatachildborntoamarriedwomanasa
14
resultofanartificialinseminationwithconsentofthe
15
marriedwoman'shusband,thefatherisdeemedthe
16
legitimatechildofthehusbandandwife,thoughthe
17
husbandhasnobiologicalrelationshipwiththechild.
18
Tennessee,inotherwords,justasitdoes
19
withadoption,reinforcesthebondsofparentandchild
20
irregardlessofbiology,aslongasthea
21
parentoraslongasthecoupleisofoppositesexes.
22
Theimportofthatforrealpeople,like
23
Drs.TancoandJesty,isthatthey,whofellinloveand
24
marriedwhileingraduateschoolinNewYork,asmany
25
academiccouples,wereonlyabletofindapositionata
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
46
1
sameuniversityinTennessee. Theymovedthere,and
Dr.Tancohasgivenbirthtotheirdaughterin
Tennessee.
Now,asaresultofthenonrecognitionlaws,
when,asoccurredlastweek,theirdaughteris
hospitalized,TennesseewouldtreatDr.Jestynotas
mom,butasalegalstrangerwithnorighttovisither
child,norighttomakemedicaldecisionsforher.
Theselawshaverealimportforrealpeople.
10
Andalthough,Ithinkthatcounselwassuggestingthat
11
FederalismandallowingStatestomakedifferentlaws,
12
ifyouchoosetogetmarriedinyourState,justdon't
13
movetoours. That'sthecostofFederalism.
14
Well,SergeantDekoeandhishusband,
15
Mr.Kostura,didn'thaveachoice. TheUnitedStates
16
ArmymovedthemtoTennessee,andgiventhelocationof
17
Armybasesinthiscountry,it'salmostacertaintythat
18
anyoneservingintheArmyforanylengthoftimewill
19
bestationedatsomepointinaStatethatwould
20
dissolvetheirmarriageasamatterofStatelaw.
21
Iwanttogetback,JusticeSotomayor,to
22
yourcommentaboutcategoricalandhowunprecedentedit
23
is,becauseevenintheageofantimiscegenationlaws,
24
theStateswouldgiveeffect,forsomepurposes,
25
interracialmarriagessuchasforpurposesofestate,
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
47
1
givingoutthetheproceedsafteradeathoror
otherwise.
Here,however,theStatestatutesprovide
thatamarriageshallbegivennoeffectforanyreason.
EvenJimObergefell'shusband'sdeathcertificatewill
notreflectthefactthathewasmarriedorthenameof
hishusband. TheStatehasnolegitimateinterestfor
denyingthemthedignityofthatlastfactregardinghis
life.
10
TherealimportoftheState'sargumentis,
11
Ibelieve,this: Thatevenwhensamesexcouplesare
12
married,theyarenot,intheirview,marriedfor
13
constitutionalpurposes;thattheStatescan
14
discriminateagainstthesemarriageseveninwaysthat
15
theConstitutionwouldnotpermittheStatesto
16
disregardthemarriagesofoppositesexcouples.
17
IurgetheCourtnottoenshrineinour
18
ConstitutionasecondclassstatusofthesePetitioners'
19
marriages.
20
Thankyouverymuch.
21
CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS:
22
Caseissubmitted.
23
(Whereupon,at12:29p.m.,thecaseinthe
24
Thankyou,counsel.
aboveentitledmatterwassubmitted.)
25
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
48
A
a.m 2:14
ability 8:1 13:10
39:9,24 40:8
able 8:7 12:23
16:2 23:16,17
26:19 27:4
31:14 45:25
abolish 24:20
abomination
8:10
aboveentitled
2:12 47:24
absolutely 11:24
academic 45:25
accommodate
44:1,7
accommodates
43:25
acknowledge
5:24 27:12,25
28:4 42:23
44:17
acknowledged
37:2 42:25
act 27:7 34:12
39:13 43:7
acts 26:22 27:6
27:10 34:22,24
add 35:19
address 6:13
addressed 7:15
admit 42:15
adopt 30:15
adopted 22:13
38:17
adoption 23:18
41:22,23 42:3
45:19
adoptions 41:16
adoptive 16:4
advance 19:21
affirm 44:24
afford 15:21
afforded 22:14
affords 24:7
40:25 41:14
approach 44:3
April 1:20 2:10
arbitrary 26:2
argue 24:17
argued 10:23
11:6
arguendo 9:19
14:22
argument 2:13
3:2,5,8 4:4,6
6:15 11:22
16:10 20:1,2,3
21:4 23:5
24:16 26:10
40:18,18 45:4
47:10
arguments 4:25
5:1 15:15
arises 12:20
Army 46:16,17
46:18
Article 26:18
31:9,10
artificial 45:14
asked 18:9 40:2
44:8
aspects 22:5
assert 6:1 9:25
10:2 31:14
asserted 10:4
assertion 45:8
asserts 11:16
assistance 16:2
24:20
assisted 16:11
23:18
Associate 2:18
assume 6:8 27:7
36:21,24
assumes 6:17
11:12
assuming 14:21
21:3
assumption 9:13
9:19 13:17
31:1
bonds 45:19
borders 14:23
15:11
born 10:25
45:13
bought 24:23
BOURKE 2:3
breadwinner
22:17
breaks 42:2
B
BREYER 28:14
back 12:7 38:4,8
28:18 29:12,24
46:21
30:8
background
brief 4:25
31:13
bring 23:18
balance 44:10
bringing 4:19
ban 12:2,6
brings 22:11
based 30:3
broad 9:7
31:15 36:3
brought 22:9
bases 46:17
build 13:13
basically 15:7
building 22:21
basis 11:3 14:5
built 4:18 40:4
begun 13:12
burden 39:8
behalf 2:17,19
Bursch 41:25
3:4,7,10 4:7
C
26:11 45:5
believe 10:11
C 3:1 4:1
19:6 47:11
California 22:13
BESHEAR 2:6
22:18 42:12
beyond 23:12
43:24
big 40:24 41:19 capable 24:19
41:20
25:19
Bill 1:15 24:25
career 23:2
biological 11:9
careful 14:15
16:5 42:2
caregiver 22:16
45:17
case 4:4 8:25
biologically 9:3
10:23 11:21
10:15 15:12
14:2,3,22 19:6
16:2 23:17
20:2 22:3
biologicallyb...
23:25 28:10,11
41:9
28:18 29:24
biology 41:10
40:10 47:22,23
45:10,20
cases 9:14 13:9
birth 42:5,9,14
20:22 21:9
43:5 46:2
26:24 28:15
birthrate 10:6
42:22
board 33:5
catch 34:14
astonishing
24:18
asunder 18:25
authority 13:14
24:4
autonomy 22:5
22:7
avoiding 13:16
aware 9:5
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
49
categorical 19:9
46:22
categorically
16:14
category 32:19
ceded 24:3
celebrated 12:18
12:25 17:11
celebration 33:9
38:10
certainly 8:2,25
9:9 14:17,20
16:18 17:22
19:20 21:24
24:12 25:7
39:4
certainty 46:17
certificate 42:5
42:14 43:6,7,9
47:5
certificates
42:10
certifies 43:11
43:12
cetera 29:15
chance 26:4
change 41:13,14
changing 35:24
41:21
chapter 45:11
character 14:14
17:1
Chief 4:3,8
13:15 14:17,20
15:3,6,22
19:25 20:11,21
20:23 26:8,12
28:10 35:10,15
36:1 40:17
44:25 45:2
47:21
child 19:17
40:11,14 45:13
45:16,17,19
46:8
childbearing
23:12
childrearing
22:5
children 4:14,19
10:16,25 11:8
11:18 15:10,12
19:19,21,23
22:9,13,16
23:2,12,19
30:15,17 41:5
42:1
choice 32:1
46:15
choose 22:6
46:12
circumstance
12:19
cite 13:10 28:11
class 21:13
clear 11:20
26:25 29:5
37:16
clients 24:22
25:13
closer 33:16,20
33:24 34:2
closest 18:5
cosanguinity
8:15
coherent 37:24
cohesive 37:24
Columbia 29:16
come 6:19 11:11
11:12 18:19
38:4,8 44:9
comes 6:18 12:7
40:10,12
comment 46:22
Commentaries
35:9,9
Commentators
33:7
common 20:15
compared 33:4
comparison
33:1
complained
43:20
complicated
30:20
comport 29:2,20
conceived 19:17
concern 39:21
concluded 28:1
concrete 40:9
conflict 30:6
35:5,7,9
confronted
35:23 36:12
consent 7:25 8:2
19:7,12 45:14
consequences
40:22
consider 43:20
consideration
14:16
Constitution
26:20 27:9,12
34:10,13 42:9
47:15,18
constitutional
8:22 25:21
28:22 47:13
constitutionally
5:7 6:16 14:10
25:24
context 24:10
41:22
contracted 19:3
contrary 6:7
contrast 8:5
controversy
35:11
corporate 24:10
corporation
24:10,12
correct 27:15
correctly 28:9
28:13
cost 22:19 46:13
counsel 10:22
14:4 26:8
44:25 46:10
47:21
country 5:23
10:10 46:17
couple 10:2,13
10:16 12:5
13:25 14:10
19:17 34:4
40:23 45:21
couple's 30:13
couples 4:13,20
7:6 10:1,5,7,21
15:10,11 16:1
19:22,23 22:6
22:7,8 23:11
23:15,20 24:19
25:10,17,19,23
30:14 36:14
37:1 45:25
47:11,16
course 5:25 15:9
21:10 25:25
court 1:1 2:13
4:9 7:5 8:23
10:11 11:3
12:14 13:4
14:9 20:19
21:11 22:3
23:23 24:24
26:13,25 31:1
31:5 32:23
34:8 40:6 41:6
44:8 47:17
Court's 5:11
26:24 27:2,9
27:18 30:4,24
35:3 39:17
courts 19:15
cousin 9:5
cousins 8:16 9:8
created 24:9
creates 24:5
creating 32:11
credit 26:21
31:10,12,20,25
34:7
current 7:15
D
D 4:1
AldersonReportingCompany
D.C 2:9,16
29:18
dare 10:17
daughter 46:2,5
deal 41:19,20
dealing 39:18
death 47:1,5
debate 44:3
DEBOER 1:20
decide 19:8
20:11 21:9
31:6 39:24
decided 31:1
36:22
decides 21:11
deciding 21:10
32:6,8
decision 30:4
39:4
decisions 5:11
27:3,9,18 46:8
declaring 16:15
decline 27:23
29:1 31:15
37:18
declined 35:12
decree 33:24
39:11
decrees 33:16,20
deemed 45:15
define 9:7 13:14
defined 43:23
defines 41:22
definitely 5:20
definition 31:4
33:11 35:22
36:2,5,14
37:20,23 38:14
39:1,5,6 40:16
41:8,23
Dekoe 46:14
demand 38:4
demonstrated
7:4
denying 47:8
DEPARTME...
1:7
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
50
departure 12:15
describe 35:20
described 41:25
deserve 34:6
designed 44:7
despite 30:17
36:5
destroy 19:18,22
23:1 25:3
destroyed 23:22
destruction
22:20
determine 36:16
44:9
determined 31:2
difference 12:5
18:2 30:12
32:11,13 38:23
44:2,2
differences
32:16
different 8:12
9:21 16:13
18:5 25:21
34:5,20,21
43:14 44:7,12
46:11
differently 9:24
21:9
difficulty 40:21
dignity 47:8
DIRECTOR 1:6
disagreement
42:21
discriminate
47:14
disregard 10:13
13:11 21:25
22:25 24:8
47:16
disregards
14:13
disrupt 44:10
dissolve 4:16
13:11 21:25
25:22 46:20
distinct 25:21
13:11 21:25
effects 10:20
effort 42:3
emphasizing
14:4
encompass 9:7
encourages 24:6
enduring 4:11
24:5
enjoyed 43:23
enormous 39:23
enshrine 47:17
enter 10:1 22:6
entered 5:5
18:20,21 20:17
entire 15:8 35:7
40:4
entitled 23:14
24:14
environment
19:19
equal 24:3
erodes 23:7,7
especially 19:16
22:8
Espejo 22:12,15
23:1
ESQ 2:16 3:3,6
3:9
essence 32:6,22
34:3
essential 20:15
26:1
essentially 27:4
27:15,19 30:4
establish 5:11
24:7
established 4:11
E
5:15 18:23
E 3:1 4:1,1
22:9 24:11,13
earlier 19:2
estate 46:25
30:25 38:3
et 1:3,8,12,16,20
effect 11:7 14:25
1:24 2:3,7
16:5 42:25
29:15
43:18 46:24
evidentiary
47:4
42:24
effectively 4:15 evolve 34:4
distinction
12:10 17:17,17
26:25 31:20
32:4 34:8
38:12 39:17
distinctions 11:4
36:3
distinguish 14:1
25:15
District 29:16
distrust 30:9
diverge 12:19
divorce 33:23
39:11,12
divorced 13:7
doctrine 35:7
doing 6:1 21:18
22:2 23:3
37:16
DOMA 12:14
16:23
domestic 40:4,8
40:22,25
DOUGLAS 2:16
3:3,9 4:6 45:4
Dr 46:2,6
dramatic 17:19
18:2,11
draw 15:18,19
15:21 16:3
drawing 11:4
drawn 34:8
draws 12:11
26:25
Drs 45:23
due 27:22
duty 44:10
evolved 33:10
exact 20:1
exactly 22:24
42:22 43:12
example 10:4
16:1 22:10
29:13 40:9
43:24
exceptions 38:22
exclude 32:19
exist 11:19
13:12
existence 23:6
42:24
existing 10:13
21:25
exists 17:19
24:12
expand 36:13
39:5
expectation 40:5
experience 6:24
extend 35:25
extent 22:7
extenuated 9:10
extinguishing
11:19
extraordinary
14:14
father 45:15
favor 21:11 31:2
favorable 21:15
fear 30:14
Fedder 29:7
Federal 13:13
24:2 29:13
30:9 44:1,6
Federalism
23:23 24:1
43:25 46:11,13
feeling 15:17
23:7
fell 45:23
female 7:20
fewer 15:10
find 31:22 38:24
45:25
finish 7:11
firm 22:18
first 6:17 11:21
14:2,3,7,22
21:6 23:6
24:16 31:1
34:14 36:15,21
36:22 40:24
44:18
five 45:3
flow 34:4
focus 30:23 41:4
F
follow 30:20
F 2:18 3:6 26:10
38:9
fact 8:4 12:11
following 40:21
32:22 35:6
forced 24:17
40:3 43:12,20 forever 21:12
47:6,8
form 24:2,4
fail 42:5
formed 25:14
faith 26:21
forth 8:23 27:21
31:10,12,20,25 fortiori 44:19
34:7
foundation 40:7
falls 39:16
41:10,11
familial 9:9
four 12:11 16:19
families 4:20,22
34:21
23:19 24:7,13 Fourteenth
family 22:4,20
26:14 44:9
36:3
fraud 42:13
fashion 35:24
free 24:8
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
51
29:25 30:11,22
36:13 37:10
40:20 45:10
good 19:18,20
government
24:2
government's
13:14
GOVERNOR
1:15,23 2:6
graduate 45:24
grant 37:10
greater 16:6
GREGORY 2:3
ground 25:2
grown 37:17,19
guess 43:11
hasten 35:19
HEALTH 1:7
hear 4:3
heard 5:1
held 14:9 20:19
helpful 25:16
hesitant 42:20
heterosexual
6:20 7:2 10:24
15:11 23:8
25:17
highlights 21:8
highly 23:25
24:2
HODGES 1:6
hold 36:24
holds 23:11
G
28:19
H
G 4:1
home 12:7 22:11
game 35:24
half 10:9
38:8,9
gay 30:13,14,16 Hall 30:4
Honor 6:10 7:4
32:18
HALLWARD...
11:2,24 12:9
genderneutral
6:4 11:13
12:12 20:14
7:9
HallwardDri...
23:10 24:15
genderspecific
2:16 3:3,9 4:5
25:7 26:24
7:8
4:6,8 5:10,19
27:16 28:6,13
General 2:18
5:25 6:9,22 7:3
29:22 31:24
generates 44:4
7:13,22 8:18
32:2,5,21
getting 8:16
8:21 9:4,23
34:15 35:14
GINSBURG
11:2,16,23
38:21 39:16
11:20,25 19:10
12:9 13:24
41:21 42:16,20
25:4 29:5,11
14:18 15:2,5,9
43:4 44:16,21
31:17,19,25
15:25 16:8,11
44:23 45:7
32:3 39:10
16:17,21,25
hopefully 37:15
give 16:6 22:10
17:8,14,21,25 horizontal 23:25
22:15,16 40:9
18:3,13,16
hospitalized
46:24
19:5,13 20:10
46:6
given 26:21 46:2
20:13,22 21:7 husband 45:15
46:16 47:4
21:19,22 23:9
45:16,17 46:14
gives 35:7
25:6 36:20
47:7
giving 23:2 47:1
37:1 45:3,4,6
husband's 47:5
glad 26:19
happen 29:13,18 hypothetical
go 38:4,8
happened 7:5,7
9:13
goes 12:6 18:6
happening
I
18:17 32:21
22:11
43:12
happens 38:6
idea 33:3
going 7:13 25:11 HASLAM 1:15 identifies 24:1
identify 12:23
23:24
ignore 25:13
ignores 25:8
impact 40:1
41:5 42:22
43:21
import 45:22
46:9 47:10
importance 4:13
important 4:16
7:24 8:3,24 9:1
9:11 10:12,18
12:13 13:2
20:18 22:1
24:25 39:24
41:6 43:19
importantly
13:8
impose 44:10
imposes 39:8
imposition
39:23
incest 8:25 9:2,6
9:7 13:1
incidents 40:11
include 27:7
36:14
includes 42:9
including 4:19
increase 10:6
indicated 30:25
38:3
individual 19:6
individuals 7:18
37:6
initially 39:19
insemination
45:14
inside 12:25
insiders 25:5
instance 7:24
13:4 14:7
instances 12:23
13:1
institution 6:11
6:15,20,21,23
AldersonReportingCompany
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
52
38:19
judgments 27:1
31:20,21 33:20
34:5,6,18 35:4
39:17
judicial 26:22
34:22
jurisdiction
39:12
jurisdictions
8:13
jurisprudence
27:20 34:7
35:3
Justice 4:3,8,24
5:16,21 6:3,6
6:14,25 7:10
7:12,17 8:14
8:19 9:2,12,12
10:19 11:10,14
11:20,25 13:15
14:17,20 15:3
15:6,22 16:7
16:10,13,19,23
17:3,4,5,13,16
17:23 18:1,6,9
18:14 19:1,10
19:25 20:11,21
20:23 21:17,21
23:4 25:4 26:8
26:12,18 27:6
27:11,17,24
28:3,7,10,14
28:18 29:4,5
29:11,12,24
30:8 31:7,8,17
31:19,25 32:3
32:10 33:14,15
33:16,19,22
34:9,12,16,17
34:20,24 35:1
35:10,15 36:1
36:19 38:6,16
38:18,22 39:10
40:17 41:15,18
42:4,8,12,17
43:2,5,10
44:14,17,22,25
45:2 46:21
47:21
justification
4:17 6:7,10
9:11 10:17
13:2
justifications
6:1,2 37:17
justifies 38:1
justify 11:19
34:2 35:5,7
40:22 41:1
45:9,10 46:20
lawful 5:6,17
lawfully 20:8
Lawrence 22:3
laws 4:21 6:13
7:7,16 8:5
12:15,19 13:3
16:3,5 17:1,5,9
17:19 18:4,11
19:24 21:15
K
24:11 26:2,3
KAGAN 44:14
26:15 27:1,10
44:17,22
28:5 33:17,20
keeping 36:16
34:4 35:3,9
KENNEDY
36:16 39:18,19
9:12
43:13,15 44:11
Kentucky 2:7
46:4,9,11,23
10:4,11,15,20 lead 32:19
10:21 12:22
leave 15:16
38:25
left 45:3
kind 12:11 15:7 legal 16:4 46:7
16:15 23:24
legislate 27:4
30:12 34:6
39:21
kinds 6:12 21:14 legitimate 30:24
know 11:7 14:9
31:4 45:16
14:12 15:17
47:7
29:13 42:20
length 46:18
Kostura 46:15
let's 5:22
liberal 33:12
L
liberty 4:12 5:13
lack 19:7
14:11
landscape 38:24 licenses 37:10
language 7:8,9
life 20:19 47:9
17:2
likewise 23:15
large 41:4
limit 24:18
largely 5:1
25:18
Laughter 28:17 limiting 36:25
30:2
limits 16:1
law 5:15,18
line 12:12 15:25
16:15 22:18
lines 15:19,20,21
24:7 26:5
15:23 16:3
27:23 29:3,6,8 link 42:1
29:13,17 30:5 linked 15:12
30:6 31:18
literally 39:20
32:1,9 33:25
39:22
little 30:18,20
live 15:3 23:21
26:3
lives 4:18 13:13
22:22 25:1
location 46:16
long 36:9,9
37:21 45:20,21
longstanding
8:9
longterm 10:20
longstanding
17:10
look 23:2
loses 44:18,19
lost 15:23 20:25
21:3
lot 32:17 38:7
love 45:23
Loving 11:5,6
M
maintain 31:3
39:25
maintained 39:2
maintaining
37:24
majority 26:2,5
making 7:4
31:19
man 36:10
manwoman
31:3 37:20,23
40:6 41:11
manner 7:14
Mansell 22:12
22:17
marital 8:12
41:9
marriage 4:16
5:5,7,14,17,24
6:13,16,20,21
6:23 7:2,16,21
8:3,16 9:6 10:1
10:13 11:15,18
12:2,4,6,24
13:18 14:11,13
AldersonReportingCompany
16:1,15 17:7
17:18,18,19,22
18:11,20,22
19:3,9,16,18
20:5,16,17
21:1,2,5,5 22:4
22:9,15,25
23:22 24:18,20
24:22 25:18,20
26:15 29:2,20
29:20 30:14
31:4,15 32:7,9
32:11,12,14,18
32:24 33:4,6,9
33:14,19 34:2
34:3 35:12,14
35:15,23 36:7
36:9,11,13,14
36:25 37:3,4,5
37:5,11,19,22
37:25 38:5,9
38:13,19,20
39:1,14,21
40:3,7,11,12
40:13,14,20
41:13,24 42:1
43:7,8,13,14
43:23 44:4,11
46:20 47:4
marriages 4:19
8:6 9:16 10:24
11:1,7,19
12:17 13:11,22
16:8 17:11
19:22 20:7,8
21:13,14,24
22:1 23:7,8,13
23:16 25:22
26:16 27:13,25
27:25 28:4,4
28:20 33:2,12
35:5 36:17
38:1,14 39:8
46:25 47:14,16
47:19
married 4:11
5:12,13,23
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
53
mom 46:7
moot 11:22
move 15:4 23:13
23:21 29:18
43:21 46:13
moved 46:1,16
N
N 3:1,1 4:1
name 47:6
Nashville 2:19
nation 15:8
39:12
nature 18:22,24
19:9
necessarily
32:15
need 9:16 33:22
needs 22:25 23:1
neighboring
12:6
nervous 30:1
Nevada 30:4
never 15:21
16:14,22,22
20:4,7 26:1
32:1
New 27:25 28:1
28:3,4,5,19,20
28:21 29:1,2
29:12,18,19,21
43:23 45:24
nonrecognition
4:21 8:5
nonrecognition
12:15 17:9
46:4
note 24:16
notion 8:11
32:24
number 10:25
O
O 3:1 4:1
OBERGEFELL
1:3
Obergefell's
47:5
objective 41:25
obligated 7:21
obligation 5:4
obligations
10:14
observed 12:14
33:8 40:7
obviously 31:5
occur 43:14
occurred 46:5
occurs 40:2
odd 39:10
offensive 31:22
offer 22:23 25:2
offered 25:7
official 43:7
Oh 41:15
Ohio 1:7 12:22
38:25
okay 6:3 11:15
44:22
old 8:11
once 5:14 14:10
18:23 24:10
one's 5:14 20:19
ones 16:5
operated 33:1
opposite 20:1
21:16 29:17
45:21
oppositesex
4:20 10:5 17:7
17:18 19:21
22:7 23:11,19
25:23 37:1
47:16
oral 2:12 3:2,5
4:6 26:10
order 7:5 10:15
13:25 34:9
outofstate
12:16 29:2
31:15,16 36:7
37:3
outside 12:24
30:9 35:11
outsiders 25:5,9
P
P 4:1
p.m 4:2 47:23
Packers 27:21
page 3:2 33:8
45:12
parent 41:8,22
45:19,21
parentage 40:12
40:16 41:10
parental 45:9
parents 42:2
part 24:2 27:2
34:14 41:2,4
particular 16:15
41:3 42:6
particularly
39:25
passed 16:14
pat 39:2,7
people 13:12
14:6,23 15:4
24:6 27:7
29:16,17,25
30:16 32:13,19
38:7 45:22
46:9
performed 20:8
32:9 34:3
37:12
performing 34:2
permissible
25:25
permit 7:6 11:15
47:15
permits 5:23
permitted 38:7
permitting 10:5
person 7:25 8:6
13:7
persons 8:12
26:16
Petitioner 11:21
36:23
Petitioners 1:4
AldersonReportingCompany
1:13,21 2:4,17
3:4,10 4:7,10
4:18 14:8 20:2
20:16 21:10,12
21:23 23:15
24:13 35:8
41:4 43:20
45:5 47:18
phenomenon
33:6
place 21:6 33:9
Plaintiffs 12:1
playing 35:22
36:2,4
please 4:9 26:13
plural 7:14,17
point 5:3 7:3 9:9
20:25 29:21
35:17,21 36:11
39:15 43:12
46:19
points 9:13
12:13 13:25
44:7
policy 6:8 13:18
13:20 15:8
16:16 30:5,7,8
30:12,12,18,23
30:24 31:3,23
32:16 33:12
37:4,18,25
39:24 40:4,19
44:13
polygamous
6:12 37:4
polygamy 5:23
portion 26:19
position 37:21
45:25
positions 24:17
possible 28:1
37:12
practice 8:9
12:16 17:10
precedent 13:3
precisely 8:10
12:18 17:12
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
54
23:14
preclude 25:20
43:16
predates 24:25
prerequisites
32:14 38:18
prerogative 39:5
present 17:23
18:10 35:11
presented 4:4
9:14 11:12
20:3
presumption
13:16 19:11
40:5,11 41:9
presupposes
12:12
pretext 15:17
25:2
pretextual 17:7
17:9
pretty 20:1 41:1
prevail 12:1
prevails 11:21
primary 22:16
22:17
principle 43:16
prior 10:23 20:2
probably 7:23
13:5 18:13
19:14,15 30:21
problem 41:16
problems 21:8
proceed 30:25
proceedings
26:22 34:23
proceeds 47:1
process 27:22
procreate 10:15
16:2 23:16,17
procreation
22:4 24:19
25:19
prohibit 13:20
pronouns 41:14
proper 39:12
proposition
28:11
protected 5:13
14:11
protecting 7:25
protection 22:14
26:2
protections 24:7
provide 19:19
19:22 47:3
provides 11:18
31:13 45:13
puberty 7:19
19:4
public 6:8 13:20
16:16 26:22
27:6,10 32:15
37:3,18 39:24
40:19 44:13
purport 4:22
purporting
15:19
purposes 22:6
42:24 46:24,25
47:13
put 18:25 38:3
puts 36:19
7:15 21:14
25:16 30:25
32:22 39:25
44:24
quick 44:14
quite 8:4 21:15
24:15,18 25:21
36:6,8 39:22
quo 39:3
quote 26:19
45:11
8:24 12:4,24
13:3 17:7,11
18:20 19:2,8
19:15 20:7,16
21:1 24:5
26:15 28:20
29:1,19 30:13
31:15 32:7,8
35:12 36:6,17
37:2,11,19
39:8 40:2,13
40:20 41:7,13
R
42:5,14 43:2
R 4:1
44:11,11
raise 6:12 7:14
recognized
21:13
14:22 20:4,8
raising 15:10,12
22:3 38:5,20
range 18:15
39:13 40:7
rare 36:6,8
recognizing 6:5
rational 10:17
12:16 14:25
14:5
18:23 30:19
rationale 25:4
32:12 33:2,2
reaches 25:23
33:12 38:1
read 28:15
record 42:19,24
real 45:22 46:9,9
42:25 43:6,10
47:10
records 26:22
reality 36:12
34:22 35:1,4
Q
really 22:11
42:9,17
question 2:17,20
27:17 28:7
redefine 36:13
3:4,7,10 4:4,7
41:18
39:6
4:10 5:2,3,8,8 rearguing 21:17 reduction 10:24
5:10,11 6:17
reason 22:1,24
10:25
6:18 9:13
22:25 27:2
reference 27:9
11:11 12:3
30:14 33:7
referred 8:11
14:1,6,8 18:7
34:8 36:25
45:12
18:10 20:24
37:9,11,18
referring 17:6
21:11,12,17,23
41:3 42:13,20 refers 35:3
23:6 26:11
47:4
reflect 47:6
28:9,13,25,25 REBUTTAL
refuse 19:2 37:2
30:20 31:1
3:8 45:4
42:14
32:25 34:15
recall 34:25
regard 27:20
36:19,22,23
receiving 5:18
33:2,5 35:21
37:7,15 38:2
recognition
37:25 42:1
40:19,24,25
32:20 39:17
43:18,22
44:15,18,19
40:1 43:19
regarding 23:8
45:5
recognize 5:4,7
47:8
questions 6:13
7:21 8:1,6,16
regularly 32:14
AldersonReportingCompany
regulate 40:8
reinforces 45:19
reject 31:21
rejected 11:3,11
related 10:2
relations 40:4,8
40:22 41:1
45:9
relationship
6:12 7:18 9:10
18:24 20:18
24:6 36:4 40:6
41:11 45:17
relationships
4:12 7:14 16:4
22:4,21 25:14
relegate 21:12
relevant 26:20
reliance 19:16
22:14 23:1,20
24:6
relied 22:21
23:23
rely 13:4 35:8
remain 5:13
remainder 26:6
remarry 13:7
remove 7:8
repeating 20:24
repetition 5:1
reply 45:12
reproduction
16:12
require 26:14
required 40:13
41:12
requirement
27:22 37:18
requires 14:15
27:12
requiring 43:18
reserve 26:6
resident 38:3
respect 5:2
12:14 19:9
23:5,14 24:14
44:5
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
55
respects 17:2
Respondent
10:23
Respondents
2:19 3:7 14:4
26:11
responding 33:5
result 45:14
46:4
retain 12:2
RICHARD 1:6
RICK 1:23
right 5:12,12,18
5:19,21 6:8
8:17 9:20
11:22,24 12:7
19:14 27:19
28:19,22 31:9
31:11,14 39:4
46:7,8
rights 24:25
32:13 34:3
43:22
rise 35:7
ROBERTS 4:3
13:15 14:17,20
15:3,6,22
19:25 20:11,21
20:23 26:8
28:10 35:10,15
36:1 40:17
44:25 45:2
47:21
Romer 17:2
rooted 45:9
rule 13:6,10
33:10 38:9
rules 9:5 35:24
S
S 3:1 4:1
samesex 5:5,7
6:21 7:6 10:7
10:21 11:15
12:2,6 13:18
17:17 19:23
20:5,7 21:1
22:6 23:6
25:10 33:4,6
36:14 38:14
40:3,14,20
41:13 44:4
47:11
saying 6:25 8:19
10:20 11:14
13:21 17:3,5
20:6 29:19
says 6:19 7:1,18
25:10 29:24
30:13
Scalia 5:16,21
6:3,6,14,25
10:19 11:10,14
21:17,21 23:4
26:18 27:6,11
27:17,24 28:3
28:7 29:4 31:8
33:15 34:17
Scalia's 7:12
school 45:24
scrutiny 14:5
second 4:4 6:17
20:24 21:13
35:10 36:19,23
44:19
secondclass
47:18
see 8:4 21:3 31:7
32:11 38:13
40:21
selfgovern 39:9
sense 44:5
separate 34:16
Sergeant 46:14
seriously 24:23
serving 46:18
set 8:23 15:7
sets 30:5
sex 26:17
sexes 45:21
shared 33:11
shown 19:7,11
significant 14:3
simple 18:10
AldersonReportingCompany
7:5,6 8:1,6,8
8:10,15 9:4
10:8,9 12:11
12:21 13:10,23
16:3,3,14,20
17:6,6,10,20
18:12,18,20
19:24 20:9
21:1 22:23
23:13,21 24:3
24:3,8,9,12
25:25 26:15,16
27:1,13 29:6
31:13 32:13
33:1,5,8 35:22
35:24 36:12,13
36:17 38:8,9,9
38:13,15 39:1
39:3,7,20 41:7
46:11,15,24
47:13,15
stationed 46:19
status 5:14
21:13 39:3
47:18
statutes 9:6 47:3
step 40:24
stepdaughter
35:18
stepfather 35:17
STEVE 2:6
stigma 11:8
Story's 35:8
straightforward
41:1
stranger 46:7
strength 44:1
strong 13:19
37:3,11,18
structure 44:1,6
subject 26:3,5
subjected 21:15
submitted 47:22
47:24
substantial 39:8
substantive
27:23
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
56
substitute 7:9
suddenly 9:20
sufficient 9:15
9:18 36:25
37:9
sufficiently 4:16
7:24 8:24 9:1
9:11 10:12,18
13:2,19 22:1
suggest 15:20
39:6
suggesting 21:20
46:10
support 4:22
16:6 22:23
28:11
supporting
13:18
suppose 5:22
37:12
supposing 11:25
Supreme 1:1
2:13
sure 28:12
surprised 4:24
survive 13:6
suspicion 42:13
T
T 3:1,1
take 24:22
talking 13:22
15:23 36:9,10
37:22 38:12
40:1
Tanco 1:12
45:23 46:2
tandem 41:24
tell 40:16 41:7
Tenn 2:19
Tennessee 1:16
12:22 22:19
35:12 36:18
38:25 41:8
43:15 45:9,10
45:18 46:1,3,6
46:16
terminology
41:14
terms 25:15
32:13 34:17,20
34:21
test 8:22
thank 25:6 26:8
44:25 45:1,6
47:20,21
theory 10:7
thing 11:21
things 32:17
think 6:2,10 7:4
7:22 8:21 9:10
10:19,19 12:10
13:1,4,5,16,24
15:14 18:3,17
19:11,13,25
20:13,14 21:7
21:24 22:10
23:10 24:1,15
24:17 25:14,16
25:18,19,24
29:22,25 30:22
32:12,22 33:14
33:19,23 34:1
38:24 39:16,18
41:6 42:4,8
43:6,13,19
46:10
thought 5:3,8
14:5 16:7,14
19:1 21:21
three 12:21
34:20
tied 9:3
time 14:24 15:4
15:16 17:21,23
18:10 26:7
35:12 36:15
37:17 46:18
today 13:6 32:23
tradition 14:14
18:18,19
traditional
12:16 26:15
31:3 38:13
39:1 41:23
transfer 22:19
transferred
22:18
treat 16:4 25:5,5
25:12 28:22
46:6
treated 35:5
treating 21:5
40:23
treatises 8:11
treatment 34:6
trouble 30:18
true 7:25 15:18
25:9
try 18:7 30:22
trying 21:9
Tuesday 2:10
two 21:9 22:13
25:16 26:16
29:6,16,17
type 11:3
U
underinclusive
15:16
underlying
30:22
undermine 4:21
undermines
14:21
understand
34:23 39:15
40:18,18 41:23
understanding
27:8 28:8,9,25
30:19 35:2
understood
28:12
United 1:1 2:13
6:18 46:15
university 46:1
unprecedented
17:1 35:23
46:22
unsurprising
36:15
unusual 23:25
24:2 36:20
urge 47:17
use 16:9
V
v 1:5,14,22 2:5
30:4
VALERIA 1:12
valid 12:24
validate 21:23
validly 17:11
variation 17:19
18:11
versus 10:1
vertical 23:24
view 30:10 44:8
47:12
viewpoint 44:2
violation 25:22
Virginia 28:21
Virtually 8:15
visit 46:7
vows 10:13
24:23
W
Wait 15:22
want 6:19 7:11
13:4 46:21
wanted 41:3
warrants 30:19
Washington 2:9
2:16 29:14,18
way 6:18 9:7,14
11:11 14:13
16:18 25:5,12
32:25 37:15
41:21
ways 47:14
We'll 4:3
we're 13:16
25:11 36:9,10
37:9,21 38:11
39:18 44:3
we've 20:4,25
weaker 13:22
AldersonReportingCompany
week 46:5
welcome 14:23
weren't 28:23
36:2,4
Whalen 2:18 3:6
26:9,10,12,24
27:8,15,18
28:2,6,8,12,24
29:9,22 30:3
30:21 31:12,18
31:24 32:2,5
32:21 33:18,21
34:1,11,14,19
34:22,25 35:2
35:14,16 36:8
37:14 38:11,17
38:21,23 39:15
41:2,17,20
42:7,11,15,19
43:4,8,11
44:14,16,21,23
45:1
wife 29:15 45:16
willing 22:15
win 20:12 21:22
Windsor 12:14
14:9,12 23:24
40:6
woman 25:23
36:10 45:13
woman's 45:15
women 25:20
word 42:9
words 15:6 33:3
45:18
work 41:24,24
world 44:5
wouldn't 36:23
wrong 5:9
X
x 1:2,9,11,17,19
1:25 2:2,8
Y
years 23:12 35:6
yield 9:22
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
57
5
5 12:23
55 25:20,23
6
68.3.306 45:12
Z
Zablocki 8:23
0
1
1 5:2 21:11,17
11:39 2:14
12yearold 7:19
12:29 4:2 47:23
13 18:17 19:12
19:13
14556 1:4
14562 1:13
14571 1:21
14574 2:4
15 19:14 45:12
16 19:15
18 18:17
1970 13:9 35:16
2
2 2:17,20 3:4,7
3:10 4:7,10 5:3
5:8,11 14:8
21:12,23 26:11
45:5
2008 22:13
2009 22:13
2015 2:10
26 3:7
28 2:10
3
361.1 45:11
4
4 3:4
45 3:10
AldersonReportingCompany