NOS. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574

In the Supreme Court of the United States
JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., Petitioners,
v.
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, et al., Respondents.
--------------------------VALERIA TANCO, et al., Petitioners,
v.
BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, et al., Respondents.
--------------------------APRIL DEBOER, et al., Petitioners,
v.
RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, et al., Respondents.
--------------------------GREGORY BOURKE, et al., Petitioners,
v.
STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, et al., Respondents.
On Writs of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF 226 U.S. MAYORS; MAYORS FOR THE
FREEDOM TO MARRY; U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; INT’L
MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOC.; NAT’L LEAGUE OF CITIES;
CITIES OF LOS ANGELES, SAN FRANCISCO, CHICAGO, NEW
YORK AND 36 OTHER CITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
Michael N. Feuer
City Attorney of Los Angeles
James P. Clark
Thomas H. Peters
Blithe Smith Bock
Counsel of Record
Lisa S. Berger
Juliann Anderson
200 No. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 978-6936
Blithe.Bock@lacity.org

Dennis Herrera
City Attorney of San Francisco
Ronald P. Flynn
Christine Van Aken
Mollie M. Lee
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554- 4290
Mollie.Lee@sfgov.org
Counsel for Amici Curiae
(Counsel continued on inside cover)

Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001

 Stephen R. Patton
Attorney for the City of Chicago
Corporation Counsel
City of Chicago Department of Law
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 744-7764

Zachary E. Carter
Attorney for Bill de Blasio,
Mayor of the City of New York
Corporation Counsel for
the City of New York
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
(212) 356-1000

 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE . . 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I.

DISCRIMINATORY MARRIAGE LAWS
IMPAIR
THE
ABILITY
OF
MUNICIPALITIES TO TREAT THEIR
RESIDENTS WITH DIGNITY AND
RESPECT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Municipalities know firsthand the
importance of marriage to individual
dignity, prosperity and social stability. . . 5
B. In states that deny same-sex couples the
freedom to marry, municipalities offer
costly workarounds and inferior
substitutes to marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. “Grossing up” to make up for
additional tax liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Domestic partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. State pushbacks on municipalities’
efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. Marriage discrimination hampers
municipalities’ economic growth and their
ability to recruit and retain talented
employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 ii
II.

THE FREEDOM TO MARRY IS
A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR
EVERYONE, INCLUDING GAY MEN AND
LESBIANS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A. Municipalities have witnessed positive
changes arising from their longstanding
protections against sexual orientation
discrimination, and recognizing the
fundamental freedom to marry would
bring about similar positive changes. . . 18
B. Gay men and lesbians share the same
fundamental right to marry recognized by
this Court again and again. . . . . . . . . . . 20
C. In contrast to the positive changes in
municipalities that openly recognize the
dignity and respect owed to the gay and
lesbian population generally, permitting
gay people’s freedom to marry to be
withheld by popular vote injures and
stigmatizes same-sex couples and
undermines their dignity and ability to
participate fully in society. . . . . . . . . . . . 22
D. The Sixth Circuit’s decision contravenes
the respect and dignity municipalities
owe their residents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. The problems the Sixth Circuit posits
would arise in a society without
marriage for heterosexual couples
apply with equal force to the same-sex
couples of today who must live without
marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 iii
2. The Sixth Circuit’s willingness to
make same-sex couples “wait and see”
if their constitutional right to marry
will eventually be recognized should
not be accepted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
III.

NON-RECOGNITION LAWS VIOLATE THE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL OF SAME-SEX
COUPLES BY TREATING THEM
AS LEGAL STRANGERS AND
INCREASING THEIR NEED FOR PUBLIC
SERVICES UPON ENTRY INTO A
DIFFERENT STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
APPENDIX
Appendix A List of Amici . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 1

 iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Atty. Gen. of N.Y. v. Soto-Lopez,
476 U.S. 898 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Bassett v. Snyder,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159253 (E.D. Mich. Nov.
12, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
DeBoer v. Snyder,
772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) . . . . 3, 25, 26, 29, 35
In re Estate of Lenherr,
314 A.2d 255 (Pa. 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health,
798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Henry v. Himes,
14 F.Supp. 3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio 2014) . . . . . . . . 34
Kerrigan v. Dept. Pub. Health,
289 Conn. 135 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13
Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U.S. 558 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1 (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 20, 21
Lozano v. City of Hazelton,
620 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
In re Marriage Cases,
43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 23
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County,
415 U.S. 250 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

 v
Nat’l Pride at Work, Inc., et al. v. Governor of
Michigan,
732 N.W.2d 139 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) . . . . 14, 15
Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) . . . . . . 6, 7, 8
Saenz v. Roe,
526 U.S. 489 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 36
Matter of Sebastian,
879 N.Y.S.2d. 677 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009) . . . . . . 33
Shapiro v. Thompson,
394 U.S. 618 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 30
Stadter v. Siperko,
661 S.E.2d 494 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . 32
Toomer v. Witsell,
334 U.S. 385 (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Troxel v. Granville,
530 U.S. 57 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 20, 21
United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 34
Zablocki v. Redhail,
434 U.S. 374 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 20, 21
Zobel v. Williams,
457 U.S. 55 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

 vi
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
2011 Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 297, § 15.583 . . . . . . . . 15
Ky. Const. § 233A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Mich. Const. art. 1, § 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Rev. Rul. 2013-17, 2013-38 IRB 201 (September 13,
2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
CITY CODES AND RESOLUTIONS
City of Hallandale Beach Resolution
No. 2014-140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
City of Wilton Manors Resolution No. 2013-0069 . 10
L.A. Admin. Code § 4.404.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
L.A. Admin. Code § 4.404.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
L.A. Admin. Code § 4.860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
L.A. Admin. Code § 10.8.2 et seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
L.A. City Charter § 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
L.A. City Charter § 501 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Miami Beach City Code § 62-128(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
N.Y. Admin. Code § 3:240-3:245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
N.Y. Admin. Code § 8-107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Palm Beach County, Domestic Partner Tax Equity
Policy, PPM No. CW-P-082 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
S.F. Admin. Code § 12B.1 et seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
S.F. Police Code § 3301-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 vii
West Palm Beach City Code § 62-66 . . . . . . . . . . . 10
OTHER AUTHORITIES
American Psychological Association, Resolution on
Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples (Aug.
2011), http://www.apa.org/about/policy/samesex.aspx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9
Tara Siegel Bernard, A Progress Report on Gay
Employee Health Benefits, New York Times,
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/aprogress-report-on-gay-employee-healthbenefits/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on
Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, Book III
(Chicago T.H. Flood & Company Legal
Publishers) (1891) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
David M. Brodzinsky, Expanding Resources for
Children III: Research-Based Best Practices in
Adoption by Gays and Lesbians, The Donaldson
Adoption Institute (Oct. 20, 2011),
http://adoptioninstitute.org/dai-press/newreport-expanding-resources-for-children-iiiresearch-based-best-practices-in-adoption-bygays-and-lesbians/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Richard Florida & Gary Gates, The Brookings
Institution, Technology and Tolerance: The
Importance of Diversity to High-Technology
Growth (2001), www.brookings.edu/research/
reports/2001/ 06/technology-florida . . . . . . . . 4, 16

 viii
Freedom to Marry, America’s Mayors on Why They
Support the Freedom to Marry, http://www.
freedomtomarry.org/pages/americas-mayors-onwhy-they-support-the-freedom-to-marry . . . . . 10
Gary J. Gates, The Williams Institute, UCLA
School of Law, LGBT Parenting in the United
States (Feb. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Mark L. Hatzenbuelher, Katie A. McLaughlin,
Katherine M. Keyes & Deborah S. Hasin, The
Impact of Institutional Discrimination on
Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay and
Bisexual Populations: A Prospective Study, 100
Am. J. Publ. Health 452 (Mar. 2010) . . . . . . . . . 7
Human Rights Campaign & Equality Federation
Institute, Municipal Equality Index 2014:
A Nationwide Evaluation of Municipal Law
(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20
Katie Kopansky & Jerry Cacciotti, Marsh &
McLennan Companies, The Cost of
Inconsistency: Quantifying the Economic Burden
to American Business from the Patchwork Quilt
of Marriage Laws (Oct. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
La. Dept. of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin
No. 13-024 (Sept. 13, 2013) at http://revenue.
louisiana.gov/forms/lawspolicies/RIB%2013024.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Christy Mallory & Brad Sears, Requiring Equal
Benefits for Domestic Partners, in When
Mandates Work: Raising Labor Standards at the
Local Level (Michael Reich et al., ed. 2014) . . 19

 ix
Mich. Op. Att’y Gen. 7171 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Haniya H. Mir, Windsor and Its Discontents: State
Income Tax Implications for Same-Sex Couples,
64 Duke L. J. 53 (2014) at http://revenue.
louisiana.gov/forms/lawspolicies/RIB%2013024.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Theodore B. Olson, The Conservative Case for Gay
Marriage: Why Same-Sex Marriage is an
American Value,” Newsweek, http://www.
newsweek.com/conservative-case-gay-marriage70923 (Jan. 8, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.) . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Tara Parker-Pope, How Hospitals Treat Same-Sex
Couples, New York Times (May 12, 2009 at
12:00 p.m.), http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/
2009/05/12/how-hospitals-treat-same-sexcouples/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Brad Sears, Nan Hunter and Christy Mallory, The
Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law,
Documenting Discrimination on the Basis of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in State
Employment (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Liz Seaton, The Debate Over the Denial of Marriage
Rights and Benefits to Same-Sex Couples and
Their Children, 4 U.Md.L.J. Race Relig. Gender
& Class 127 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
James B. Stewart, Gay Marriage Bans May Come at
a Price, New York Times, May 11, 2012 . . . . . . 16

 x
Therese M. Stewart and Mollie M. Lee, The Role of
Public Law Offices in Marriage Equality
Litigation, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 187
(2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8, 9
Transcript of Proceedings, Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . 8
U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Grossing Up Awards:
Why and Why Not, http://www.opm.gov/policydata-oversight/performance-management/
performance-management-cycle/rewarding/
grossing-up-awards/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
U.S. Social Security Admin., Program Operations
Manual System, GN 00210.005, at
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/020
0210005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Oren Yaniv, Brooklyn Judge Refuses Lesbian
Couple’s Request to Adopt Own Son, NY Daily
News (Jan. 28, 2014 at 3:53p.m.),
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/
judge-refuses-lesbian-couple-request-adopt-sonarticle-1.1594320 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

 1
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
Amici Curiae2 are 226 mayors and 40 cities from
across the country, from states that have accorded the
freedom to marry to all and those that have not. All
Amici know firsthand the importance of marriage to
their communities. Marriage makes the population
healthier, more productive and economically successful,
and all municipalities prosper when the right to marry
is equally available to all who live within their borders.
Municipalities, as the level of government most
closely connected to the community they serve, bear a
great burden when a targeted sector of their populace
is denied the right to marry. Amici attend to the daily
needs of their populace: they provide police and fire
services; they handle parks and recreation services,
transportation, housing, and a broad range of other
services. Some municipalities offer public health and
emergency medical services, and family and child
services.
Under the leadership of mayors and
governing bodies, municipalities create and enforce
local laws and policies. They perform long-term
planning and provide the vision for the future of the

1

No party nor counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or
in part, and no person or entity, other than amici curiae or their
counsel, made any monetary contribution to fund the preparation
or submission of this brief. Respondents have filed blanket
consents to the filing of amicus briefs with the Clerk, and
Petitioners’ letter of consent is filed concurrently with this brief.

2

Amici, which also include the United States Conference of
Mayors, Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, the International
Municipal Lawyers Association, and the National League of Cities,
are listed in the Appendix.

 2
communities they serve. In performing these tasks,
Amici have all seen the benefits that marriage brings
to a community.
“Marriages cement families, families build
neighborhoods; strong neighborhoods create
strong communities; strong communities make
strong cities, and cities are the backbone of
America.” Houston Mayor Annise D. Parker,
January 20, 2012.
When the freedom to marry is denied, municipalities
are the first level of government to suffer the impact.
The amici cities have a long history of implementing
local measures designed to ensure the fair and equal
treatment of gay men and lesbians, and to provide a
welcoming environment for visitors.
The U.S.
Conference of Mayors has adopted a resolution
declaring its support for marriage equality for same-sex
couples, and all attendant rights such as family and
medical leave, tax equity, insurance and retirement
benefits, and its opposition to the enshrinement of
discrimination in the federal or state constitution.
Denying the freedom to marry is discrimination
that undermines local efforts. Amici are united in
urging this Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit and
affirm the freedom to marry for all Americans.

 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Sixth Circuit held that gay men and lesbians,
unlike all other individuals, have no fundamental right
to marry. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir.
2014). According to that court, whether or not this
discrete group can marry should be left to the “usually
reliable work of the state democratic processes.” 772
F.3d at 396. That is, the freedom to marry – for gay
men and lesbians but no others – should be placed “in
the hands of the state voters.” Id. at 403.
In an unbroken line of cases from Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) to Zablocki v. Redhail,
434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978) and Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
78, 99 (1987), this Court has held that the freedom to
marry is a fundamental right. Amici ask this Court to
expressly hold that this fundamental right applies
equally to same-sex couples and different-sex couples,
it cannot be withheld by popular vote or the whims of
a state legislature, and states cannot discriminatorily
refuse to respect lawful marriages performed in other
states. At least three grounds support this result.
First, excluding a certain class of people from
marriage undermines the dignity and respect that
government owes everyone. Gay and lesbian couples
live in all of our communities, where they raise
children, support each other in sickness and in health,
combine assets, buy homes and otherwise engage in all
the indicia of marriage. The stability of these family
units directly benefits municipalities. Marriage lessens
societal ills such as poverty, homelessness, and crime;
when it is denied to a discrete group, they – and their
children – are more likely to need the social services
that municipalities provide.

 4
Equal treatment under the law, including the
freedom to marry, is also a boon to municipalities’ local
economies, which are largely reliant on the recruitment
of talent and diversity in the workforce and in their
population. “[D]iverse, inclusive communities that
welcome gays, immigrants, artists, and free-thinking
bohemians are ideal for nurturing creativity and
innovation, both keys to success in the new
technology.” Richard Florida & Gary Gates, The
Brookings Institution, Technology and Tolerance: The
Importance of Diversity to High-Technology Growth
(2001), www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2001/
06/technology-florida. Institutional discrimination at
the state level greatly impedes local governments’
ability to achieve that goal. Without marriage equality,
public entities face great difficulty attracting the kind
of talent that enriches their local economies,
diminishing their competitiveness vis-à-vis states (or
countries) that permit equal access to marriage.
Second, official recognition of marriage as a
fundamental right for all, including gay men and
lesbians, is crucial to municipalities’ ability to treat
everyone with equal dignity and respect. Long before
the current momentum towards ending gay couples’
exclusion from marriage, numerous cities had already
been at the forefront in enacting local laws and
regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation, sometimes long before their state
counterparts. Those cities have seen the benefits of
treating their residents with equal dignity and respect,
a respect that must extend to their full and equal
enjoyment of constitutional rights such as the freedom
to marry.

 5
Finally, marriage equality cannot have full meaning
unless it is recognized uniformly across state lines.
The second question before this Court – whether a
state may constitutionally refuse to recognize the
marriage of a same-sex couple validly married in
another state – should be answered with a resounding
“no.”
The right to travel is based on the premise that our
country is strengthened by the freedom that we all
have to move among the various states. It is hard to
imagine a greater obstruction to travel than a state law
declaring that a family will be dissolved upon entry
into another state. Amici, who seek to attract a diverse
and vibrant pool of employees, businesses and
residents, have a strong interest in ensuring that such
blatant constitutional violations are not tolerated by
this Court.
ARGUMENT
I.

DISCRIMINATORY MARRIAGE LAWS
IMPAIR
THE
ABILITY
OF
MUNICIPALITIES TO TREAT THEIR
RESIDENTS WITH DIGNITY AND
RESPECT.
A. Municipalities know firsthand the
importance of marriage to individual
dignity, prosperity and social stability.

Jerry Sanders, former mayor of San Diego,
California, in explaining his support of marriage
equality, said:
“Allowing loving and committed couples to join
in marriage has benefits not just for couples and

 6
their families – but also for society. Marriage
encourages people to take responsibility for each
other, provides greater security for children, and
helps our country live up to its promises set
forth in our founding documents. These are
important values for a strong society, and we
should encourage them.”
It is well-documented that marriage brings financial
and emotional stability to populations, leading to
healthier communities that allow local governments to
thrive.
Marriage is a “vital social institution.”
Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 948
(Mass. 2003).
“For those who choose to marry, and for their
children, marriage provides an abundance of
legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it
imposes weighty legal, financial and social
obligations.” Goodridge, id.
The benefits of marriage were recognized and
outlined by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, much as they have
been affirmed in over 60 state and federal rulings in
the past two years. The District Court found that
marriage benefits society because it organizes
individuals into “cohesive family units,” provides a
“realm of liberty, intimacy and free decision-making,”
creates “stable households, and legitimat[izes]
children.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921,
962-63 (N.D. Cal. 2010). And marriage promotes
“physical and psychological health,” and increases
wealth and “psychological well-being.” Ibid.

 7
Marriage also entails significant responsibilities,
which in turn benefits municipalities by lessening the
need for government support. The Perry District Court
found, for example, that marriage “assign[s]
individuals to care for one another and thus limit[s] the
public’s liability to care for the vulnerable,” and
“facilitate[s] property ownership.” Ibid. Marriage
“creates economic support obligations” between adults.
Ibid. Marriage ultimately forms an economic unit in
which two adults support each other not just
emotionally but financially and otherwise.
The
“tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a
married couple’s children.” Ibid. Accordingly, when
couples are denied the freedom to marry, they and
their children lose all the benefits that marriage offers,
and are more likely to require the social services
municipalities provide.
Discriminatory marriage laws are themselves a
form of institutional discrimination that causes
psychological harm. Mark L. Hatzenbuelher, Katie A.
McLaughlin, Katherine M. Keyes & Deborah S. Hasin,
The Impact of Institutional Discrimination on
Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual
Populations: A Prospective Study, 100 Am. J. Publ.
Health 452-459 (Mar. 2010). Laws that discriminate
on the basis of sexual orientation contribute to
“minority stress,” which is “chronic social stress
resulting from experiencing prejudice, anticipating
further prejudice, harboring internalized homophobia,
and attempting to conceal or hide one’s sexual
orientation.” Therese M. Stewart and Mollie M. Lee,
The Role of Public Law Offices in Marriage Equality
Litigation, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 187, 191
(2013). Research has shown a strong correlation

 8
between this kind of stress and health issues such as
anxiety disorders and increased suicide. Id. at 193.
Discriminatory marriage laws also encourage
private prejudice.
The American Psychological
Association (APA) found that denying same-sex couples
the right to marry “stigmatizes same-sex relationships,
perpetuates the stigma historically attached to
homosexuality, and reinforces prejudice against
lesbian, gay and bisexual people.” In 2011, it
unanimously approved a resolution in support of full
marriage equality.
American Psychological
Association, Resolution on Marriage Equality for SameSex Couples (Aug. 2011), http://www.apa.org/about/
policy/same-sex.aspx. As then-Mayor of San Diego
Jerry Sanders testified during the Perry trial, “When
government tolerates discrimination against anyone for
any reason, it becomes an excuse for the public to do
the same thing.” Transcript of Proceedings at 1226,
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal.
2010).
These harms all lead to a greater need for services
and additional costs for municipalities. For example,
when employees miss work because of mental or
physical ailments linked to discrimination, the loss of
productivity harms municipalities as employers, and
lowers tax revenues because local businesses are less
productive. The Role of Public Law Offices in Marriage
Equality Litigation, supra at 195. When children stay
home from school because they fear bullying, school
districts lose funding and must spend time and money
to help the affected students. Id. When gay men and
lesbians seek medical attention after hate crimes, local
governments often pay the price as health-care

 9
providers of last resort. Id. Even the act of putting
marriage to a vote causes harm. The APA has found
that statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples the
right to marry “are a significant source of stress to the
lesbian, gay and bisexual residents of those states and
may have negative effects on their psychological wellbeing.” American Psychological Association, Resolution
on Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples, supra.
Mayors across the country have observed the
benefits of assuring the freedom to marry without
discrimination. See, e.g, New York Mayor Bill De
Blasio (“Expanding marriage equality in New York has
not only helped our local economies, but also enabled
our City, schools, hospitals and businesses to treat all
couples and families with the respect they deserve – be
it with the birth or adoption of a child, or in dealing
with difficult medical issues. Everyone deserves this
basic dignity.”); Boston Mayor, the late Tom Menino
(“We’ve now had the freedom to marry in Boston for
almost eight years. Since then we’ve seen more samesex couples move to the city, and with that economic
development, urban revitalization, and a spirit of pride
and progress that are hallmarks of Boston.”); former
Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (“Having
enjoyed the freedom to marry in D.C. for nearly two
years now, I know firsthand that marriage makes a city
stronger.”); Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (failure to
enact marriage equality is “bad for Chicago, bad for
Illinois, and bad for our local economy and the jobs it
creates.”); Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer (“Our city
remains committed to equality, and we understand this
serves as an additional economic development tool as
our community looks to attract talented, creative
people and employers and create jobs for all of our

 10
residents.”). See Freedom to Marry, America’s Mayors
on Why They Support the Freedom to Marry,
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/ americasmayors-on-why-they-support-the-freedom-to-marry
(last visited Mar. 3, 2015).
B. In states that deny same-sex couples the
freedom to marry, municipalities offer
costly workarounds and inferior
substitutes to marriage.
In states that deny same-sex couples the freedom to
marry, many municipalities have devised
“workarounds” to alleviate the disparities between the
gay and lesbian population and the heterosexual
population. Municipalities should not have to engage
in these costly alternatives that would be unnecessary
were all couples able to enjoy the constitutional
freedom to marry.
1. “Grossing up” to make
additional tax liabilities.

up

for

Although municipalities often provide medical
benefits to the registered domestic partner of an
employee, the fair market value of the added insurance
for the domestic partner, who is not legally recognized
as a spouse, is taxed. Therefore, some municipalities
reimburse the employee for the additional tax liability
to offset the inequity. See, e.g., Palm Beach County,
Domestic Partner Tax Equity Policy, PPM No. CW-P082; City of Hallandale Beach Resolution No. 2014-140;
Miami Beach City Code § 62-128(d); West Palm Beach
City Code § 62-66; City of Wilton Manors Resolution
No. 2013-0069.

 11
But this practice, called “grossing up,” is quite costly
for municipalities. The United States Office of
Personnel Management estimates that a net “grossing
up” award of $1,000 could cost the agency $1,713.80.
U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Grossing Up Awards: Why
and Why Not, http://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/performance-management/performancemanagement-cycle/rewarding/grossing-up-awards/ (last
visited March 3, 2015). The New York Times estimates
that grossing up for an employee who incurs extra
taxes of $1,200 to $1,500 will cost the employer from
$2,000 to $2,500. Tara Siegel Bernard, A Progress
Report on Gay Employee Health Benefits, New York
Times, http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/aprogress-report-on-gay-employee-health-benefits/ (last
visited Mar. 4, 2015).
2. Domestic partnerships.
Domestic partnerships are also costly and
complicated for a municipality to administer. While
marriage gives rise to a myriad of benefits and
incidents, these inadequate marriage proxies entail
administrative steps such as registration and
notification to each affected city department. This
administrative burden would not exist if everyone had
an equal right to exercise the freedom to marry.
These bureaucratic structures, moreover, amount to
“separate but unequal” family units that render these
families outliers within the community. Counties and
municipalities cannot approximate the hundreds of
benefits, protections and responsibilities available
through recognition of a marriage. The marital status
offers, for example, a spousal presumption of
parentage, protections for surviving spouses through

 12
intestacy, protections for children of a couple in a
divorce proceeding including both custody and financial
support, federal and state benefits reserved for
spouses, and others.
Most importantly, these cobbled-together
protections cannot approximate the dignity, societal
recognition, security and portability enjoyed by those
couples who are presently permitted to marry.
“[O]nly marriage, legally respected and honored
when entered into by same-sex couples under
law the same way it is for heterosexual couples,
can provide the protections of marriage for
families headed by same-sex couples.” Liz
Seaton, The Debate Over the Denial of Marriage
Rights and Benefits to Same-Sex Couples and
Their Children, 4 U.Md.L.J. Race Relig. Gender
& Class 127 (2004).
The balkanization of marriages, domestic
partnerships and civil unions amounts to an
unworkable and demeaning approach to civic life. In
Kerrigan v. Dept. of Pub. Health, 289 Conn. 135 (2008),
the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the state’s
classification of family units into same-sex civil unions
compared to marriages for different-sex couples. The
Court explained:
“[W]e reject the trial court’s conclusion that
marriage and civil unions are ‘separate’ but
‘equal’ legal entities…Although marriage and
civil unions do embody the same legal rights
under our law, they are by no means ‘equal.’
* * * We do not doubt that the civil union law
was designed to benefit same sex couples by

 13
providing them with legal rights they previously
did not have. [T]he very existence of the
classification gives credence to the perception
that separate treatment is warranted for the
same illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the
past discrimination in the first place. Despite
the truly laudable effort of the legislature in
equalizing the legal rights afforded same sex
and opposite sex couples, there is no doubt that
civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society
than marriage. We therefore conclude that the
plaintiffs have alleged a constitutionally
cognizable injury, that is, the denial of the right
to marry a same sex partner.” 289 Conn. at 152
(footnote omitted).
Similarly, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct.
2675 (2013), this Court recognized the destruction to
children of living in a “second-tier marriage.” Id. at
2694. Windsor was addressing a marriage between a
same-sex couple that was not being recognized by the
federal government, but the impact is the same: Living
in an unrecognized family form “humiliates tens of
thousands of children now being raised by same-sex
couples.” Ibid. Treating relationships between samesex partners differently “makes it even more difficult
for the children to understand the integrity and
closeness of their own family and its concord with other
families in their community and in their daily lives.”
Ibid.
See also In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757, 845846 (2008) (“affording same-sex couples access only to
the separate institution of domestic partnership, and
denying such couples access to the established

 14
institution of marriage, properly must be viewed as
impinging upon the right of those couples to have their
family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal
to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex
couples”).
3. State pushbacks on municipalities’
efforts.
Some state marriage bans are so broad that the
municipalities within those states cannot provide even
these separate systems. At least eighteen states have
extended their discriminatory bans by refusing to
create or recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships,
or any other alternative to marriage. See, e.g., Ky.
Const. § 233A (“A legal status identical or substantially
similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals
shall not be valid or recognized.”)
The City of Kalamazoo, Michigan has faced such a
state backlash. It had been offering health care
benefits to all employees and their domestic partners
when Michigan voters subsequently passed a
constitutional amendment that restricted a marriage
“or similar union” to one man and one woman. Mich.
Const. art. 1, § 25 (emphasis added). The state
concluded “the City’s policy of offering benefits to samesex domestic partners violates the amendment’s
prohibition against recognizing any ‘similar union.’”
Mich. Op. Att’y Gen. 7171 (2005). Although Kalamazoo
announced its intention to discontinue the benefits
plan, it was still challenged in litigation. Ultimately,
in 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed that
domestic partner benefits violated the state’s expanded
marriage ban. Nat’l Pride at Work, Inc., et al. v.
Governor of Michigan, 732 N.W.2d 139 (Mich. Ct. App.

 15
2007).
Determined to provide benefits to their
committed-but-unmarried employees, Kalamazoo and
other Michigan public entities adopted benefit plans
that permitted an employee to designate another adult
an “Other Qualified Adult” (“OQA”).
In direct
response, the Michigan Legislature passed a bill
prohibiting these OQA plans. 2011 Mich. Pub. Acts,
Act 297, § 15.583.
Although this OQA ban was recently declared
unconstitutional by a federal district court,3
Kalamazoo’s eight-year struggle is the kind of
resistance that a municipality should not have to face.
Yet the Sixth Circuit’s decision promises endless such
protracted battles for municipalities everywhere.
Because marriage is regulated in the first instance at
the state level, so long as a state denies marriage to
same-sex couples, municipalities within those states
can only carry these marriage workarounds so far –
and often in the face of constant resistance from the
state – in their efforts to provide same-sex couples and
their families with at least a modicum of the benefits
available to their different-sex counterparts.
C. Marriage discrimination hampers
municipalities’ economic growth and
their ability to recruit and retain
talented employees.
For municipalities as employers, the work
environment is particularly important as public
entities cannot offer the kind of compensation packages

3

Bassett v. Snyder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159253 (E.D. Mich. Nov.
12, 2014).

 16
available in the private sector. Instead, fairness and
equality in the workplace and quality of life benefits
are critical for recruiting and retaining the best
employees.
Further, the most dynamic American city economies
are driven by technology and innovation. In the area of
high technology, for example, it has been found that
diversity, including the presence of gay men and
lesbians, is key to attracting the talent and businesses
necessary to thrive: “Gays … signal a diverse and
progressive environment that fosters the creativity and
innovation necessary for success in high tech industry.”
Richard Florida & Gary Gates, The Brookings
Institution, Technology and Tolerance: The Importance
of Diversity to High-Technology Growth 2 (2001).
Fostering this sort of diversity attracts to the
municipality both the desired employees and the
businesses that want to hire them. Companies support
marriage equality because
“they understand that marriage equality is a
mechanism for them to attract and retain
talent… it signals a kind of openness to people
who are different. It sends a signal to people,
straight or gay, that this is a place where they
can potentially thrive. That’s especially critical
for companies that rely on people who have to be
creative, entrepreneurial and innovative.”
James B. Stewart, Gay Marriage Bans May
Come at a Price, New York Times, May 11, 2012,
at B1.
In October 2014, Marsh & McLennan released an
exhaustive report quantifying the impact of the

 17
“patchwork quilt of marriage laws” on business. It
noted:
“With each passing year, more employers are
advancing inclusive benefits policies for their
employees. In 2013 among large corporations,
already 67% that offered health benefits also
offered equal access to benefits, and that
number is growing by 3% per year. Small and
mid-sized companies are adding these benefits
at rates of 8% per year. Without a ruling by the
Supreme Court affirming freedom to marry
nationally, we expect the talent market
consensus to consolidate, and a greater portion
of employers will push to equalize benefits and
tax treatment for same-sex households.
Administrative and tax burdens will grow.”
Katie Kopansky & Jerry Cacciotti, Marsh &
McLennan Companies, The Cost of
Inconsistency: Quantifying the Economic Burden
to American Business from the Patchwork Quilt
of Marriage Laws 15 (Oct. 2014).
Ultimately, inconsistent marriage laws create
administrative burdens, and discriminatory marriage
laws hamper the ability of municipalities to recruit and
retain diverse, talented workforces.

 18
II.

THE FREEDOM TO MARRY IS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR EVERYONE,
INCLUDING GAY MEN AND LESBIANS.
A. Municipalities have witnessed positive
changes arising from their longstanding
protections against sexual orientation
discrimination, and recognizing the
fundamental freedom to marry would
bring about similar positive changes.

Mayors and municipalities are often at the forefront
of local government efforts to ensure that gay men and
lesbians are treated with dignity and respect. In 1984,
the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution
calling for the legal protection of gay men and lesbians,
followed by dozens of cities adopting such resolutions
and laws. In 1996, the City Council of Los Angeles
opposed a state assembly bill, which was ultimately
defeated, that would have precluded recognition of
marriages between same-sex couples. Los Angeles
also passed resolutions opposing the marriage
discrimination voter initiatives in 2000 and 2008.
Long before any state recognized marriage equality,
and even before any state recognized domestic
partnerships, many cities, including Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago and New York, devised laws and
regulations to protect against sexual orientation
discrimination at the municipal level. Starting in the
1970s, these and other cities began to adopt laws and
policies to eliminate discrimination against, and
equalize the status of, lesbians and gay men. Today,
many cities have municipal codes prohibiting sexual
orientation discrimination in employment, housing and
public accommodations and prohibiting employment

 19
discrimination by City contractors. See, e.g., L.A.
Admin. Code §§ 4.404.1, 4.404.2, 4.860. 10.8.2 et seq.;
L.A. City Charter §§ 104 and 501; N.Y. Admin. Code
§§ 3:240-3:245, 8-107; S.F. Police Code §§ 3301-05, S.F.
Admin. Code § 12B.1 et seq.
When these provisions outlawing sexual orientation
discrimination were first enacted, they were novel and
groundbreaking; yet today, cities across the nation
have such laws.
Cities implementing these protections have seen
extraordinarily positive changes. For example, San
Francisco’s Equal Benefits Ordinance has increased the
number of employees who are offered domestic partner
benefits as well as the number of insurance companies
that offer plans with such benefits. And it has helped
private companies recruit and retain talented
employees. Christy Mallory & Brad Sears, Requiring
Equal Benefits for Domestic Partners, in When
Mandates Work: Raising Labor Standards at the Local
Level 158-59 (Michael Reich et al., ed. 2014).
Similarly, while Cincinnati once had “‘the most antigay local law our country has ever seen,’” which caused
the city to lose “close to $50 million in Convention
business, people moved away and [its] image as a
world-class city suffered tremendously,” that law was
repealed in 2004 with great positive results. Chris
Seelbach, Councilman, City of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Human Rights Campaign & Equality Federation
Institute, Municipal Equality Index 2014: A
Nationwide Evaluation of Municipal Law 14 (2014).
Since the repeal, Cincinnati has “taken every necessary
step to be an LGBT-inclusive city. . . . Steps like
extending equal partner health benefits to city

 20
employees, creating an LGBT police liaison and
requiring all city contractors to agree in writing to an
inclusive non-discrimination law.” Id. Cincinnati is
“now a leading voice in the fight for LGBT equality,”
and “for the first time in sixty years, [its] population is
increasing. And [its] urban core is thriving with good
paying jobs, exciting bars and restaurants, diverse
housing and a top-notch park system great for
families.” Ibid.
Simply put, treating all Americans with dignity and
respect under the law is not only the Constitution’s
command, it is good for communities and good for the
country.
B. Gay men and lesbians share the same
fundamental right to marry recognized
by this Court again and again.
While a state validly regulates the incidents of
marriage that directly impact its governance, such as
the distribution of property and responsibility for
children, this authority has never given a state license
to trample upon the civil rights of those who wish to
exercise them. This Court has repeatedly intervened
when a state’s regulation of marriage intrudes upon
constitutional rights.
In Zablocki, supra, the Court acknowledged that
marriage is a matter of state domestic policy, but
readily overturned a state law that prohibited marriage
by an indigent parent who owed child support. 434
U.S. at 380. In Turner, supra, the Court recognized
that a state could restrict an inmate’s constitutional
rights, but nonetheless struck as “facially invalid” its
ban on inmate marriages. 482 U.S. at 99. And in

 21
Loving – the dispositive case here – the Court accepted
that marriage was a “social relation” subject to state
regulation, but held that the state power was “not
unlimited,” and thus struck a ban on interracial
marriage as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
388 U.S. at 8.
Despite this authority, the Sixth Circuit found that
marriages between persons of the same sex are
different than other marriages because they are not
“deeply rooted” in our nation’s “history and tradition.”
But the same was true of interracial marriages in
Loving, marriages by parents owing child support in
Zablocki and marriages by inmates in Turner. The
Court’s emphasis in those cases on the right – rather
than the attributes of the individuals exercising the
right – is necessary and proper. It is the “history and
tradition” of marriage itself, not the particular
individuals choosing it, that renders marriage a
fundamental right.
Likewise, Amici urge this Court to recognize that it
is the ultimate freedom to marry – not the sexual
orientation or gender of the individuals wishing to
exercise the freedom – that is the fundamental right
here.

 22
C. In contrast to the positive changes in
municipalities that openly recognize the
dignity and respect owed to the gay and
lesbian population generally, permitting
gay people’s freedom to marry to be
withheld by popular vote injures and
stigmatizes same-sex couples and
undermines their dignity and ability to
participate fully in society.
“One marker of the hostility and animus directed
towards LGBT Americans is the proliferation of
attempts to use state and local ballot measures to
repeal or preclude protection against employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
identity…[P]roponents of workplace equality for the
LGBT minority have had to respond – more frequently
than any other group – to repeated, well-funded
campaigns to erect barriers against basic civil rights
protections.” Brad Sears, Nan Hunter and Christy
Mallory, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law,
Documenting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity in State Employment
(2009).
Conditioning fundamental rights on a group’s
popularity with voters is demeaning to the targeted
group and toxic to the relationship between the
unpopular group and the general population. The
uncertainty caused when a group of people is targeted
in this way is disruptive for all municipalities; in
contrast, marriage provides the kind of stability that
allows a municipality to thrive.
California’s Proposition 8 was a prime example of
what happens when the rights of gay men and lesbians

 23
may at any time be subject to a vote. During this
turbulent time in California history, marriage equality
was recognized by the California Supreme Court in
May 20084, resulting in more than 18,000 same-sex
couples becoming lawfully married. But six months
later, in November 2008, Proposition 8 took that right
away, and gay men and lesbians were again barred
from getting married. This resulted in a “crazy quilt
of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone.”
Theodore B. Olson, The Conservative Case for Gay
Marriage: Why Same-Sex Marriage is an American
Value, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/
conservative-case-gay-marriage-70923 (Jan. 8, 2010 at
7:00 p.m.). Marriage equality has since been restored
and settled in California, but, as Olson wrote at the
time:
“[T]here are now three classes of Californians:
heterosexual couples who can get married,
divorced and remarried, if they wish; same-sex
couples who cannot get married but can live
together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex
couples who are now married but who, if they
divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational
system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot
stand.” Ibid.
Such a “crazy quilt” imposes a burden on
municipalities when they are forced to address such
fluctuations in the structures of their families – one of
the building blocks of society. The uncertainly caused
when a discrete group of people is targeted in this way
is disruptive for all municipalities; in contrast,
4

In Re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).

 24
marriage provides the kind of stability that allows
municipalities to thrive.
Even in states that currently embrace marriage
equality, the idea that the marriage right could be lost
in an election denigrates the marital status of those
same-sex couples allowed to marry because it can
always be taken away. Where the risk of marriage
equality vanishing arises with each election, gay men
and lesbians must live with the specter that their right
to marry can be whisked away at any time. That is
precisely the opposite of the stability that marriage –
and fundamental rights – are supposed to bring.
D. The Sixth Circuit’s decision contravenes
the respect and dignity municipalities
owe their residents.
Amici adopt the arguments made by the parties as
to the infirmity of the Sixth Circuit’s decision, and
focus here on specific aspects most germane to
municipalities.
The Sixth Circuit’s opinion displays an elemental
lack of respect for gay men and lesbians. If this Court
affirms that decision, thus integrating this disrespect
into binding case law, the impact on the gay and
lesbian community and the municipalities in which
they live would be very harmful.

 25
1. The problems the Sixth Circuit posits
would arise in a society without
marriage for heterosexual couples
apply with equal force to the samesex couples of today who must live
without marriage.
After discussing a supposed rationale for the laws at
issue – the “responsible procreation” theory that has
been rejected by virtually every reviewing court that
has heard it – the Sixth Circuit posited:
“Imagine a society without marriage.” 772 F.3d
at 404.
A society without marriage, the Court found, would
lead to a host of problems resulting from the “absence
of rules about how to handle the natural effects of
male-female intercourse: children.” Ibid.
But the court failed to recognize that the chaos it
imagined would continue to be imposed on the families
of same-sex couples by its own decision, leaving gay men
and lesbians without marriage whenever the electorate
votes to ban it.
While the Sixth Circuit’s concerns revolved around
biological children and questions of which parents
should be responsible for which children, ibid., the
undeniable reality is that nearly twenty percent of
same-sex couples in the United States are raising
children under the age of 18. Gary J. Gates, The
Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, LGBT
Parenting in the United States, at 1 (Feb. 2013). Most
of those children are biologically related to one of their
parents. Id. at 3, fig. 4. Gay and lesbian families also
account for a growing number of foster adoptions. Over

 26
fifty percent of lesbian and gay parents adopted
children from the child welfare system, and sixty
percent of adopted children are of a different race than
their parents. David M. Brodzinsky, The Donaldson
Adoption Institute, Expanding Resources for Children
III: Research-Based Best Practices in Adoption by Gays
and Lesbians (Oct. 20, 2011), http://adoption
institute.org/dai-press/new-report-expanding-resourcesfor-children-iii-research-based-best-practices-inadoption-by-gays-and-lesbians/ (last visited March 3,
2015).
Gay men and lesbians are raising children –
biological, adoptive and foster – and these families and
children are just as worthy of the rules and stability
that marriage brings. The Sixth Circuit’s willingness
to leave gay men and lesbians in the chaos it contended
would result if different-sex couples did not have
marriage shows an indifference toward the children of
same-sex couples. It should not be tolerated by this
Court.
2. The Sixth Circuit’s willingness to
make same-sex couples “wait and
see” if their constitutional right to
marry will eventually be recognized
should not be accepted.
The Sixth Circuit alternatively opined that a state
might want to “wait and see before changing a norm,”
defined as the “traditional” marriage between a man
and a woman. 772 F.3d at 404. It found the best
solution was to allow “state democratic forces to fix the
problems” – yet those same “democratic forces” are
excluding gay men and lesbians from the benefits and
responsibilities of marriage.

 27
This cavalier disregard for ending marriage
discrimination should not be accepted. Every day of
denial of a constitutional right, and particularly any
delay in being able to marry and share in the tangible
and intangible protections and responsibilities
marriage brings, matters. Because the need to secure
the fundamental right of gay men and lesbians to
marry is urgent for the residents and employees of
municipalities, it is urgent for Amici.
Public entities in states that do not recognize
marriage equality increasingly are filled with families
like that of petitioners April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse:
two women in a long-term, committed relationship,
both state-licensed foster parents, providing a “stable
and loving home for several children, two of whom have
special needs.” Pet. pp. 5-6. For their family,
Michigan’s marriage discrimination means these
women are unable to marry, nor may they both be the
legal parent of any of their children. Each parent is a
legal stranger to one or more of the children they are
raising. A car accident or similar life event could tear
their family apart.
Requiring these women to wait for inchoate “state
democratic forces” to decide whether they will ever be
able to make their family whole is not something this
Court should tolerate.

 28
III.

NON-RECOGNITION LAWS VIOLATE THE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL OF SAME-SEX
COUPLES BY TREATING THEM AS
LEGAL STRANGERS AND INCREASING
THEIR NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
UPON ENTRY INTO A DIFFERENT STATE

The employees and residents of municipalities
frequently travel to other states for work or pleasure,
and sometimes relocate to take a new job or be near
family. But when a committed, legally married samesex couple and their children enter a state whose laws
expressly refuse to acknowledge their marriage, their
marital and parental relationships are effectively
dissolved for the length of their stay. The denial of
rights provided by state law to different-sex married
couples creates obstacles for same-sex couples
attempting to provide their family with care and
support, and forces them to rely instead on public
services provided by local municipalities. Such couples
are thereby penalized for exercising their constitutional
right of interstate travel, resulting in uncertainty and
loss of dignity.
“[F]or the peace of the world, for the prosperity
of its respective communities, for the well-being
of families, for virtue in social life, for good
morals, for religion, for everything held dear by
the race of man in common, it is necessary that
there should be one universal rule whereby to
determine whether parties are to be regarded as
married or not.” Joel Prentiss Bishop, New
Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and
Separation, Book III, §856 at p. 369 (Chicago
T.H. Flood & Company Legal Publishers) (1891);

 29
see also In re Estate of Lenherr, 314 A.2d 255,
258 (Pa. 1974) (in an age of easy mobility, it
would create inordinate confusion if a marriage
valid in one state were held invalid elsewhere).
This Court recognizes a “virtual unconditional
personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us
all” to “be free to travel throughout the length and
breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or
regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this
movement.” Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498 (1999),
citing Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 643
(1969). This right is violated by a state law “when it
uses any classification which serves to penalize the
exercise of that right.” Atty. General of N.Y. v. SotoLopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986).
The Sixth Circuit found the non-recognition laws at
issue do not violate the right to travel because they do
not prohibit movement in and out of the state. 772
F.3d at 420. But this Court has never required “a
direct obstruction” to ingress and egress to find that a
state law violates the right to travel. See, e.g., Toomer
v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 385 (1948) (South Carolina
statute requiring nonresident fishermen to pay $2500
fee while residents pay only $25). And while a samesex couple may be free to travel with their family to a
non-recognition state, the burdens of losing legal
recognition of their relationships continue as long as
the couple resides in that state, rendering it more
extreme than the waiting-period laws struck in cases
such as Saenz v. Roe, supra, 526 U.S. 489 (invalidating
waiting period for newly arrived residents to obtain
state welfare benefits).

 30
Where a state’s exercise of its police powers is used
to impact travel, the Court has declared such actions
unconstitutional, consistently striking state laws
intended to discourage certain people from living
within the state. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Thompson, supra,
394 U.S. at 629-30 (Connecticut law limiting welfare
benefits for new residents); Memorial Hospital v.
Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 269 (1974) (Arizona
statute requiring one-year residency for entitlement to
free medical care).
Non-recognition laws similarly impact migration,
requiring same-sex couples to surrender their marital
status as the price of settling in the state for any
reason – whether to pursue a new job opportunity, to
care for an elderly or ill relative, or simply to make a
fresh start. The right to travel is rendered largely
meaningless for married same-sex couples when it is
conditioned on making such a sacrifice. “It is difficult
to conceive of a more effective method of ensuring that
persons do not enter or remain in a locality.” Lozano v.
City of Hazelton, 620 F.3d 170, 220-21 (3rd Cir. 2010).
And when same-sex couples are deterred from settling
in a non-recognition state, local municipalities are
hindered in their quest for talented employees and
entrepreneurial business interests.
Not knowing whether one will be treated as married
when one moves or travels forces married couples to
anticipate traumatic events such as illness or death
that might occur while traveling, and to take costly and
burdensome legal steps to try to replicate family rights
that travel automatically with different-sex married
couples. Yet, those efforts may still be insufficient to
provide protection against the governmental and

 31
institutional discrimination promoted
non-recognition laws like the ones at issue.

by

One illustration of how such discrimination
penalizes traveling same-sex couples occurred in 2007,
when Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond traveled with
their three children to Florida. Lisa suffered an
aneurysm and was rushed to the hospital. Janice was
not permitted to see her, despite providing the hospital
with documentation of their relationship and
previously prepared health care proxies. Janice was
told Florida law did not consider her family. By the
time she prevailed, hours had passed and Lisa was
unconscious; she died later that day. Tara ParkerPope, How Hospitals Treat Same-Sex Couples, New
York Times (May 12, 2009 at 12:00 p.m.),
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/how-hospitalstreat-same-sex-couples/.
While Janice and Lisa were unable to marry in their
home state of Washington, their experience is
something currently-married same-sex couples must be
prepared to face. It shows how even the most
determined efforts to duplicate the legal rights that
come automatically to different-sex married couples
may be futile in the face of implacable discrimination.
On top of the concerns raised by traveling to a
non-recognition state, same-sex couples relocating to
such a state are exposed to significant harm by the
confusing “crazy quilt” of laws concerning the
recognition of their marriages. If they establish a
domicile in a non-recognition state, the effective
dissolution of their marriage gives rise to complications
in matters such as divorce, estate administration and
access to state and federal benefits, potentially leaving

 32
one or both spouses dependent on public services. Such
complications can have particularly harsh results when
child custody and visitation issues arise. Should the
relationship of the same-sex couple end while living in
a non-recognition state, for example, the non-biological
or non-adoptive parent of a child of that marriage may
be treated by that state’s courts as an unrelated third
party. See, e.g., Stadter v. Siperko, 661 S.E.2d 494,
497-99 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) (lesbian non-parent denied
visitation over biological parent’s objection because she
was unable to show denial of visitation would be
detrimental to the child’s welfare).
Attempts to protect against such an eventuality
may be hampered by the inconsistency in state
marriage laws. Last year, a New York judge denied the
request of a lesbian mother to adopt the child born to
her spouse. Although New York law viewed both
women as a legal parent based on their valid marriage,
the couple wanted their rights legally established
should they travel to a non-recognition state. The
judge, however, ruled adoption was not warranted
given their existing legal parent-child relationships.
Oren Yaniv, Brooklyn Judge Refuses Lesbian Couple’s
Request to Adopt Own Son, NY Daily News (Jan. 28,
2014 at 3:53p.m.), http://www.nydailynews.com/newyork/brooklyn/judge-refuses-lesbian-couple-requestadopt-son-article-1.1594320. Should this couple ever
travel to a non-recognition state, they will risk having
those legal bonds questioned should any life event
occur.
For example, if the birth mother died while in the
non-recognition state, her spouse could be faced with
the very real possibility that a judge could order their

 33
child — born to a legally married couple — live with a
distant relative or in foster care while the non-birth
parent returns to her domicile state to seek legal
recourse and regain custody of her child. That child, in
the interim, may suffer unnecessary fear, anxiety and
insecurity related to the loss of one parent and
separation from the second.
It was just such a potentiality that led a different
New York judge to allow an adoption under similar
circumstances. Matter of Sebastian, 879 N.Y.S.2d. 677
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009) (granting adoption because it was
the only option “that will ensure recognition of both
Ingrid and Mona as [Sebastian’s] legal parents
throughout the entire United States.”). Same-sex
couples should not be forced to go through this
additional step of adopting their own child nor should
they risk losing custody—even temporarily—because
they travel to a state that refuses to accept them as a
family. Similarly, an individual legally married in a
marriage equality state should not have to worry his or
her parental status will be questioned by a school
official, medical provider, law enforcement authority or
emergency personnel merely because the family travels
or relocates to a state that refuses to recognize valid
same-sex marriages.
But that is exactly the situation some of the Ohio
plaintiffs are left in by the Sixth Circuit’s decision.
Because Nicole and Pam Yorksmith, lawfully married
in California, are unable to have both their names
listed on their children’s birth certificates, they fear
Pam, the non-biological mother, will not be “recognized
with authority to approve medical care, deal with
childcare workers and teachers, travel alone with their

 34
[children], and otherwise address all the issues parents
must resolve.” Henry v. Himes, 14 F.Supp. 3d 1036,
1042 (S.D. Ohio 2014). They are forced to consider that
should anything happen to Nicole, their children will
be left in the care of the local municipality rather than
that of their other mother.
The Constitution affords parents significant rights
in the care and control of their children, and these
fundamental rights may be curtailed only under
exceptional circumstances. Troxel v. Granville, 530
U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (liberty interest in care, custody and
control of one’s children is “perhaps the oldest
fundamental liberty interest recognized by this Court”).
Non-recognition laws interfere with these valued
parental rights.
Everyday financial and administrative issues arise
for married same-sex couples who relocate to
non-recognition states as well. For example, they lose
certain Social Security and veterans’ benefits that by
statute are based on the law of the state in which they
live.5 Post-Windsor, same-sex married couples may file
joint federal tax returns6; however, those couples

5

See, U.S. Social Security Admin., Program Operations Manual
System, GN 00210.005, at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/
poms.nsf/lnx/0200210005 (last visited March 3, 2015).

6

See Rev. Rul. 2013-17, 2013-38 IRB 201 (Sept. 13, 2013). Noting
the state-of-celebration rule had been successfully applied to
common-law marriages for over fifty years, the IRS concluded that,
“[g]iven our increasingly mobile society,” it was important to have
a “uniform rule of recognition that can be applied with certainty .
. . for all federal tax purposes.” Id. at 10. The I.R.S. recognized the
confusion arising from “‘marriages possibly appearing and

 35
lawfully married in one state but living in a
non-recognition state have a complicated and expensive
task in filing their taxes. They must fill out five tax
returns: two individual state returns, one joint federal
return, and two individual federal returns that will not
be filed but are necessary to calculate individual state
liabilities.7 These couples face costs, confusion and
frustration different-sex couples do not encounter.
In finding the Tennessee non-recognition law did
not violate the right to travel, the Sixth Circuit
asserted “the law does not punish out-of-state new
residents in relation to its own born and bred . . .
because the State has not expanded the definition of
marriage to include gay couples in all settings, whether
the individuals just arrived in Tennessee or descend
from Andrew Jackson.” 772 F.3d at 420. Essentially,
the court held the right to travel was not implicated
because Tennessee discriminates against all same-sex
couples equally. This rationale minimizes the injuries
non-recognition laws inflict on lawfully married samesex couples who travel to or settle in such states. The
statutes treat these couples in a dissimilar way than
different-sex couples, affirmatively penalize their
residency by nullifying their marital status for statelaw purposes, and impose unique harms that are

disappearing each time a taxpayer moves.’” Haniya H. Mir,
Windsor and Its Discontents: State Income Tax Implications for
Same-Sex Couples, 64 Duke L. J. 53 (2014) at http://revenue.
louisiana.gov/forms/lawspolicies/RIB%2013-024.pdf.
7

See e.g., La. Dept. of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin No.
13-024 (Sept. 13, 2013) at http://revenue.louisiana.gov/
forms/lawspolicies/RIB%2013-024.pdf (last visited Mar. 3, 2015).

 36
related to, but not the same as, the harms experienced
by couples the state bars from marriage. This
differentiation discourages same-sex couples from
traveling or relocating to, or remaining in, nonrecognition states, potentially lessening the diverse
pool from which municipalities seek to draw their
residents and employees.
Justice O’Connor once commented, “[I]t is difficult
to imagine a right more essential to the Nation as a
whole than the right to establish residence in a new
State.” Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 76-77 (1982),
O’Connor, J., concurring. For that reason, laws
designed to dissuade individuals from moving to a state
cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Saenz v. Roe,
supra, 526 U.S. at 503-06. By deterring same-sex
couples from traveling or moving to states where their
legal rights and relationships will not be honored, and
penalizing those who do, non-recognition laws violate
the constitutional right to travel.
CONCLUSION
As this Court has recognized, the drafters of the
Constitution were not specific in outlining “the
components of liberty in its manifold possibilities”
because they “knew times can blind us to certain truths
and later generations can see that laws once thought
necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578-579 (2003).
This case brings out “certain truths” to which the
law has been blind. When the electorate excludes a
minority from something as important as the freedom
to marry and equal legal respect for their families,
federal courts – and this Court in particular – must

 37
step in. Amici submit that the class singled out for
disparate treatment here – gay men and lesbians –
should be protected now.
Amici, who include Mayors and municipalities, are
all united in respectfully requesting that this Court
reverse the judgment of the Sixth Circuit, and hold
that states may not deny gay and lesbian couples the
freedom to marry nor the equal respect for their lawful
marriages.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael N. Feuer
City Attorney of Los Angeles
James P. Clark
Thomas H. Peters
Blithe Smith Bock
Counsel of Record
Lisa S. Berger
Juliann Anderson
200 No. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 978-6936
Blithe.Bock@lacity.org
Dennis Herrera
City Attorney of San Francisco
Ronald P. Flynn
Christine Van Aken
Mollie M. Lee
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554- 4290
Mollie.Lee@sfgov.org

 38
Stephen R. Patton
Attorney for the City of Chicago
Corporation Counsel
City of Chicago Department of Law
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 744-7764
Zachary E. Carter
Attorney for Bill de Blasio,
Mayor of the City of New York
Corporation Counsel for
the City of New York
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
(212) 356-1000

 1
APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A List of Amici . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 1

App. 1

APPENDIX A
AMICI
Mayors for the Freedom to Marry is a non-partisan
group of 500 mayors from 45 states who support the
freedom to marry for same-sex couples and full and
equal respect for lawful marriages across the United
States. Currently chaired by Mayor Kevin Faulconer of
San Diego, Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles, Mayor
Michael Nutter of Philadelphia, Mayor Annise Parker
of Houston, Mayor Kasim Reed of Atlanta, and Mayor
Greg Stanton of Phoenix, Mayors for the Freedom to
Marry lead culturally, racially, and geographically
diverse cities – and share the belief, based on their
experience and understanding of their constituents and
communities, that ending marriage discrimination will
strengthen families, businesses, cities, and the
country. Mayors for the Freedom to Marry is a program
of Freedom to Marry, the campaign to win marriage
nationwide.
The United States Conference of Mayors is the
official non-partisan organization of cities with
populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,393 such
cities in the country today. Each city is represented in
the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor.
The primary roles of The U.S. Conference of Mayors
are to promote the development of effective national
urban/suburban policy, strengthen federal-city
relationships, ensure that federal policy meets urban
needs, provide mayors with leadership and
management tools; and create a forum in which mayors

 App. 2
can share ideas and information. Conference members
speak with a united voice on organizational policies
and goals.
The International Municipal Lawyers Association
(IMLA) is a non-profit, nonpartisan professional
organization consisting of more than 2500 members.
The membership is comprised of local government
entities, including cities, counties and subdivision
thereof, as represented by their chief legal officers,
state municipal leagues, and individual attorneys.
IMLA serves as an international clearinghouse of legal
information and cooperation on municipal legal
matters. Established in 1935, IMLA is the oldest and
largest association of attorneys representing United
States municipalities, counties and special districts.
IMLA’s mission is to advance the responsible
development of municipal law through education and
advocacy by providing the collective viewpoint of local
governments around the country on legal issues before
the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals,
and in state supreme and appellate courts.
The National League of Cities is the oldest and
largest organization representing municipal
governments throughout the United States. Its mission
is to strengthen and promote cities as centers of
opportunity, leadership, and governance. Working in
partnership with 49 State municipal leagues, NLC
serves as a national advocate for the more than 19,000
cities, villages, and towns it represents.

 App. 3
Mayor Matthew Appelbaum, Boulder, Colorado
Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Ridgewood, New Jersey
Mayor Richard Bain, City of Pepper Pike, Ohio
Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Mayor Ralph Becker, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mayor William Bell, Durham, North Carolina
Mayor Peter Benjamin, Garrett Park, Maryland
Mayor David Berger, Lima, Ohio
Mayor David Bieter, Boise, Idaho
Mayor John Birkner, Westwood, New Jersey
Mayor Robert Blais, Lake George, New York
Mayor Bill Bogaard, Pasadena, California
Mayor Muriel Bowser, Washington, D.C.
Mayor Noam Bramson, New Rochelle, New York
Mayor Edward Brennan, Merchantville, New Jersey
Mayor Michael Brennan, Portland, Maine
Mayor Barry Brickner, Farmington Hills, Michigan
Mayor David Burton, Malvern, Pennsylvania
Mayor Tom Butt, Richmond, California
Mayor Pete Buttigieg, South Bend, Indiana
Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, West Sacramento,
California
Mayor Michael Cahill, Beverly, Massachusetts
Mayor Kenneth Carlson, Pleasant Hill, California
Mayor Catherine Carlton, Menlo Park, California
Mayor Craig Cates, Key West, Florida
Mayor Jerry Cole, Rainier, Oregon
Mayor Chris Coleman, Saint Paul, Minnesota
Mayor Michael Coleman, Columbus, Ohio
Mayor Barbara Coler, Fairfax, California
Mayor Ron Collins, San Carlos, California
Mayor Carolyn Comitta, West Chester, Pennsylvania
Mayor Thomas Cook, Freehold Township, New Jersey
Mayor Suzette Cooke, Kent, Washington
Mayor Joy Cooper, Hallandale Beach, Florida

 App. 4
Mayor Frederick Courtright, Mount Pocono,
Pennsylvania
Mayor David Coviello, Biscayne Park, Florida
Mayor Frank Cownie, Des Moines, Iowa
Mayor John Cranley, Cincinnati, Ohio
Mayor Robert Cullen, King City, California
Mayor Joseph Curtatone, Somerville, Massachusetts
Mayor Pauline Cutter, San Leandro, California
Mayor John D’Amico, West Hollywood, California
Mayor CJ Davis, Holt, Michigan
Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York, New York
Mayor Victor De Luca, Maplewood, New Jersey
Mayor John Dennis, West Lafayette, Indiana
Mayor James Diossa, Central Falls, Rhode Island
Mayor Robert Dolan, Melrose, Massachusetts
Mayor Tom Donegan, Provincetown, Massachusetts
Mayor Bridget Donnell Newton, Rockville, Maryland
Mayor Kimberley Driscoll, Salem, Massachusetts
Mayor Michael Duggan, Detroit, Michigan
Mayor Jon Dunleavy, Bloomingdale, New Jersey
Mayor Buddy Dyer, Orlando, Florida
Mayor Paul Dyster, Niagara Falls, New York
Mayor Amanda Marie Edmonds, City of Ypsilanti,
Michigan
Mayor Jim Ellison, Royal Oak, Michigan
Mayor Jorge O. Elorza, Providence, Rhode Island
Mayor Mimi Elrod, Lexington, Virginia
Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago, Illinois
Mayor John Engen, Missoula, Montana
Mayor Mark Epley, Southampton, New York
Mayor William Euille, Alexandria, Virginia
Mayor Kevin Faulconer, San Diego, California
Mayor (Town Supervisor) Paul Feiner, Greenburgh,
New York
Mayor Andrew M. Fellows, College Park, Maryland

 App. 5
Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio, New London, Connecticut
Mayor Johnny Ford, Tuskegee, Alabama
Mayor David Foubert, Yellow Springs, Ohio
Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson, Gary, Indiana
Mayor Steven Fulop, Jersey City, New Jersey
Mayor Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles, California
Mayor Robert Garcia, Long Beach, California
Mayor Victoria Gearity, Ossining, New York
Mayor Andrew Gillum, Tallahassee, Florida
Mayor David Glass, Petaluma, California
Mayor Elizabeth Goreham, State College, Pennsylvania
Mayor J. Richard Gray, City of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania
Mayor David Gysberts, Hagerstown, Maryland
Mayor Charlie Hales, Portland, Oregon
Mayor Barbara Halliday, Hayward, California
Mayor Michael B. Hancock, Denver, Colorado
Mayor Timothy Hanna, Appleton, Wisconsin
Mayor Toni N. Harp, New Haven, Connecticut
Mayor Bruce A. Harris, Chatham, New Jersey
Mayor Matt Hayek, Iowa City, Iowa
Mayor George Heartwell, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Mayor Karyn Hippen, Thompson, North Dakota
Mayor Betsy Hodges, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mayor John Hollar, Montpelier, Vermont
Mayor Jamel Holley, Roselle, New Jersey
Mayor Aaron Householter, Salina, Kansas
Mayor Frank G. Jackson, Cleveland, Ohio
Mayor Sylvester “Sly” James, City of Kansas City,
Missouri
Mayor Gary Jensen, Ferndale, Washington
Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Fayetteville, Arkansas
Mayor Richard Kaplan, Lauderhill, Florida
Mayor Stephen Keefe, Fredonia, New York
Mayor Christopher Kelly, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania

 App. 6
Mayor Judy Kennedy, Newburgh, New York
Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Mayor Michael Kohut, Haverstraw, New York
Mayor Chris Koos, Normal, Illinois
Mayor Janice Kovach, Clinton, New Jersey
Mayor Rick Kriseman, St. Petersburg, Florida
Mayor Mark Kruzan, Bloomington, Indiana
Mayor Jennifer Laird-White, Nyack, New York
Mayor Kenneth A. LaSota, Borough of Heidelberg,
Pennsylvania
Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Carrboro, North Carolina
Mayor Timothy Leavitt, Vancouver, Washington
Mayor Marcia Leclerc, East Hartford, Connecticut
Mayor Liz Lempert, Princeton, New Jersey
Mayor Connie Leon-Kreps, North Bay Village, Florida
Mayor Sam Liccardo, San Jose, California
Mayor Peter Lindstrom, Falcon Heights, Minnesota
Mayor David Lossing, Linden, Michigan
Mayor Larry MacDonald, Bayfield, Wisconsin
Mayor Kim Maggard, Whitehall, Ohio
Mayor M. James Maley Jr., Borough of Collingswood,
New Jersey
Mayor John Manchester, Lewisburg, West Virginia
Mayor Esther Manheimer, Asheville, North Carolina
Mayor John Marchione, Redmond, Washington
Mayor A. David Marne, Shavano Park, Texas
Mayor David Martin, Stamford, Connecticut
Mayor William Martin, Greenfield, Massachusetts
Mayor Shaun McCaffery, Healdsburg, California
Mayor Fred McCarthy, Langley, Washington
Mayor Ronald McDaniel, Montville, Connecticut
Mayor Kevin McKeown, Santa Monica, California
Mayor John A. McNally, Youngstown, Ohio
Mayor Pasquale Menna, Red Bank, New Jersey
Mayor Kurt Metzger, Pleasant Ridge, Michigan

 App. 7
Mayor Michael Mignogna, Voorhees, New Jersey
Mayor Stephanie Miner, Syracuse, New York
Mayor Mark Mitchell, Tempe, Arizona
Mayor William Moehle, Town of Brighton, New York
Mayor Alex Morse, Holyoke, Massachusetts
Mayor Darryl Moss, Creedmoor, North Carolina
Mayor Svante Myrick, Ithaca, New York
Mayor David Narkewicz, Northampton, Massachusetts
Mayor Marvin Natiss, North Hills, New York
Mayor Don Ness, Duluth, Minnesota
Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Mayor Frank Ortis, Pembroke Pines, Florida
Mayor Eric Papenfuse, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Mayor Robert D. Parisi, West Orange, New Jersey
Mayor Annise Parker, Houston, Texas
Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia, California
Mayor Ed Pawlowski, Allentown, Pennsylvania
Mayor William Peduto, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Mayor Jannquell Peters, East Point, Georgia
Mayor Randy Peterson, St. Helens, Oregon
Mayor Jerry V. Pierce, Valley Mills, Texas
Mayor Kitty Piercy, Eugene, Oregon
Mayor Donald Plusquellic, Akron, Ohio
Mayor Peter Porcino, Ardsley, New York
Mayor Stephen P. Pougnet, Palm Springs, California
Mayor Mike Rawlings, Dallas, Texas
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore,
Maryland
Mayor Kasim Reed, Atlanta, Georgia
Mayor Tari Renner, Bloomington, Illinois
Mayor Gary Resnick, Wilton Manors, Florida
Mayor Paul Rickenbach, Jr., Village of East Hampton,
New York
Mayor David Rivella, Morrisville, Pennsylvania
Mayor Thomas Roach, White Plains, New York

 App. 8
Mayor Madeline Rogero, Knoxville, Tennessee
Mayor Ron Rordam, Blacksburg, Virginia
Mayor Cindy Rosenthal, Norman, Oklahoma
Mayor Jonathan Rothschild, Tucson, Arizona
Mayor Jesus Ruiz, Socorro, Texas
Mayor Mike Ryan, Sunrise, Florida
Mayor Tim Ryan, Broward County, Florida
Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells, Culver City, California
Mayor Mary Salas, Chula Vista, California
Mayor Pete Sanchez, Suisun City, California
Mayor Angelo “Skip” Saviano, Elmwood Park, Illinois
Mayor Hillary Schieve, Reno, Nevada
Mayor Timothy Scott, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Mayor Pedro Segarra, Hartford, Connecticut
Mayor Kathy Sheehan, Albany, New York
Mayor Sarah Sherwood, Abbeville, South Carolina
Mayor John Sibert, Malibu, California
Mayor Scott Silverthorne, Fairfax, Virginia
Mayor Ronald Silvis, Greensburg, Pennsylvania
Mayor Steve Skadron, Aspen, Colorado
Mayor Jeffrey Slavin, Somerset, Maryland
Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis, Missouri
Mayor Patrick Slayter, Sebastopol, California
Mayor R. Scott Slifka, West Hartford, Connecticut
Mayor Marjorie Sloan, Golden, Colorado
Mayor Paul J. Smith, Jr., Borough of Union Beach,
New Jersey Mayor Paul R. Soglin, Madison, Wisconsin
Mayor Jeanne Sorg, Ambler, Pennsylvania
Mayor Mike Spano, Yonkers, New York
Mayor Vaughn Spencer, Reading, Pennsylvania
Mayor Tom Stallard, Woodland, California
Mayor Greg Stanton, Phoenix, Arizona
Mayor Tom Stevens, Hillsborough, North Carolina
Mayor Philip Stoddard, City of South Miami, Florida
Mayor Marilyn Strickland, Tacoma, Washington

 App. 9
Mayor Ron Strouse, Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Mayor Peter Swiderski, Hastings-on-Hudson,
New York
Mayor Christopher Taylor, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Mayor Ted Terry, Clarkston, Georgia
Mayor Jack Thomas, Park City, Utah
Mayor James Thomas, Jr., Hinesville, Georgia
Mayor Brian Tobin, Cortland, New York
Mayor Alex Torpey, South Orange, New Jersey
Mayor Nathan Triplett, East Lansing, Michigan
Mayor Zachary Vruwink, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
Mayor Dayne Walling, Flint, Michigan
Mayor Martin J. Walsh, Boston, Massachusetts
Mayor Setti Warren, Newton, Massachusetts
Mayor Miro Weinberger, Burlington, Vermont
Mayor Georgine Welo, South Euclid, Ohio
Mayor Shelley Welsch, University City, Missouri
Mayor Jason West, New Paltz, New York
Mayor Bob Whalen, Laguna Beach, California
Mayor Nan Whaley, Dayton, Ohio
Mayor Dennis Wilcox, Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Mayor Bruce Williams, Takoma Park, Maryland
Mayor Kenneth Williams, Carbon Cliff, Illinois
Mayor Michael Winkler, Arcata, California
Mayor Aaron Wittnebel, Lake Park, Minnesota
Mayor Ken Wray, Sleepy Hollow, New York
Mayor Dawn Zimmer, City of Hoboken, New Jersey
Los Angeles, California
San Francisco, California
Chicago, Illinois
New York, New York
Arlington, Virginia
Berkeley, California
Boston, Massachusetts

 App. 10
Broward, Florida
Carrboro, North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
College Park, Maryland
Davis, California
Dayton, Ohio
East Lansing, Michigan
Emsworth, Pennsylvania
Fairfax, California
Irvington, New Jersey
Kansas City, Missouri
Kent, Washington
Laguna Beach, California
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Long Beach, California
Madison, Wisconsin
Malibu, California
Newburgh, New York
Nyack, New York
Pembroke Pines, Florida
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pleasant Hill, California
Portland, Maine
Princeton, New Jersey
Salem, Massachusetts
Santa Monica, California
Takoma Park, Maryland
Washington, D.C.
West Hollywood, California
Whitehall, Ohio
Wilton Manors, Florida
Ypsilanti, Michigan