Brief of 172 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators as amici curiae in support of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, urging affirmance on the merits.

Position:Introduction and Summary of the Argument through I. Gay Men and Lesbians Lack Meaningful Political Power, p. 177-200 - Marriage Equality and Reproductive Rights: Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead

No. 12-307

In the Supreme Court of the United States United States of America, Petitioner,


Edith Schlain Windsor and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


Heather C. Sawyer

House Committee on

the Judiciary

Minority Counsel to

Ranking Members

John Conyers, Jr.

and Jerrold Nadler

B-336 Rayburn Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

(202) 225-6906

Miriam R. Nemetz

Counsel of Record

Richard B. Katskee

Kathleen Connery Dawe

Michael B. Kimberly

Mayer Brown LLP

1999 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 263-3000

Counsel for Amici Curiae

A complete list of the 172 Members of the House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators participating as amici is provided in an appendix to this brief. Among them are:

Nancy Pelosi

House Democratic


Steny H. Hoyer

House Democratic


James E. Clyburn

House Assistant

Democratic Leader

Harry Reid

Senate Majority Leader

Charles E. Schumer

Vice Chair, Senate

Democratic Conference

Richard J. Durbin

Assistant Senate

Majority Leader

Patty Murray

Secretary, Senate

Democratic Conference

Rep. Jerrold Nadler

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Lead Sponsors, Respect for Marriage Act

John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member, House

Committee on the Judiciary

Patrick J. Leahy

Chairman, Senate

Committee on the Judiciary

Jared Polis, David N. Cicilline, Sean Patrick Maloney,

Mark Pocan, Kyrsten Sinema, and Mark Takano

House LGBT Equality Caucus Co-Chairs

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities Interest of the Amici Curiae Introduction and Summary of the Argument Argument I. Gay men and lesbians lack meaningful political power A. Just as heightened review applies to sex-based classifications, it should apply here B. Gay men and lesbians could not prevent DOMA, and their marriages remain the subject of unfavorable congressional attention C. Lesbians and gay men have yet to obtain basic civil-rights protections II. DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional A. DOMA is not the rational result of impartial lawmaking B. None of the arguments advanced in DOMA's defense justifies the denial of federal recognition for married gay and lesbian couples 1. Preservation of tradition is not a valid basis for DOMA 2. DOMA harms American families and serves no legitimate federal interest in procreation or child-rearing 3. DOMA undercuts Congress's long standing practice of deferring to the States on matters of family law 4. The supposed interest in conserving public resources does not justify DOMA 5. The asserted desire for federal "uniformity" does not justify DOMA. Conclusion Appendix--Complete list of Members of Congress participating as Amici TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1873) Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) Cruzan v. Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (1956) Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010) Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906) Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248(1983) Lembcke v. United States, 181 F.2d 703 (2d Cir. 1950) Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 2d 884 (C.D. Cal. 2010) Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Mass. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 698 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D. Mass. 2010) Mass. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) passim Money v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 811 F.2d 1474 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) Pedersen v. Office of Per s. Mgmt., 881 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2012) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) Renshaw v. Heckler, 787 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1986) Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) Ry. Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949) Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Kenney, 240 U.S. 489 (1916) Slessinger v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 835 F.2d 937 (1st Cir. 1987)(per curiam) Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973) U.S. Dep't of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) Weinberger v. Weisenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) Weiner v. Astrue, 2010 WL 691938 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012) Witt v. Dep't of Air Force, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (W.D. Wash. 2010) Statutes & Regulations 5 U.S.C. [section][section] 8101 et seq. 11 U.S.C. [section] 302 (a) 26 U.S.C. [section] 6013 28 U.S.C. [section] 1738C 29 U.S.C. [section][section] 2601 et seq. 42 U.S.C. [section] 7385s-3 (d)(1) 20 C.F.R. [section] 404.1101 (Supp. 1952) 38 C.F.R. [section] 39.10 (a), (c) Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) Other Authorities 142 Cong. Rec. H7489 (July 12, 1996) 142 Cong. Rec. H7501 (July 12, 1996) 142 Cong. Rec. S10118 (Sept. 10, 1996) 142 Cong. Rec. S4870 (May 8, 1996) H.R. 1397, 112th Cong. (2011) H.R. 1540, 112th Cong. [section] 534 (2011) H.R. 5326, 112th Cong. [section] 561 (2011) H.R. 8269, 95th Cong. (1977) H.R.J. Res. 88, 109th Cong. (2006) H.R. Rep. No. 104-664 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905 passim H.R. Res. 5, 113th Cong. [section] 4 (a)(1)(2013) M.V. Lee Badgett & R. Bradley Sears, Putting A Price on Equality? The Impact of Same-Sex Marriage on...

To continue reading