DeBoer v. Snyder
772 F.3d 388
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- This case consolidates six challenges from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee to state definitions or recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
- Plaintiffs allege Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations by Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee laws and constitutional amendments defining or recognizing marriage.
- The district courts in Michigan and Ohio held various marriage provisions unconstitutional under rational basis or heightened scrutiny; Kentucky and Tennessee rulings varied, with some decisions applying rational basis review.
- The Sixth Circuit firmed that states may define marriage according to their own democratically chosen policies and that the Constitution does not compel a nationwide redefinition of marriage.
- The majority ultimately reversed, emphasizing deference to democratic processes and traditional state authority over domestic relations, while the dissent argued for broader constitutional protection of same-sex marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourteenth Amendment requires states to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples | DeBoer, Love, Obergefell, Henry claim violation of DP/EP | States contend rational basis and democratic processes support traditional definition | No; not required by Fourteenth Amendment under rational basis and evolving meaning |
| Whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under DP | Plaintiffs seek fundamental-right status for same-sex marriage | Marriage is not inherently a fundamental right under existing doctrine | No; Loving does not extend to a new definition of marriage here |
| Whether sexual-orientation classifications merit heightened scrutiny | Gay individuals are a historically discriminated class | Classification rises from tradition and is not a suspect class | Controlled by rational-basis review; no heightened scrutiny required for these laws |
| Whether states may refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause | Nonrecognition harms DP/EP rights | State policies defining marriage domestically are legitimate public policy | Yes; FFCC does not compel recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages; preservation of state policy allowed |
| Whether the right to travel invalidates state nonrecognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages | Nonrecognition burdens travel-related rights | Nonrecognition does not regulate movement or punish new residents | Yes; right to travel not violated; rational basis suffices for DP/EP issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (U.S. 1972) (summary disposition; not controlling today but bound lower courts until overruled)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (struck down DOMA; discusses federalism and state-defining marriage authority)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (foundation for equal dignity in marriage law; framed as opposite-sex in historical context)
- Rom er v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (invalidated anti-sodomy landscape; used as animus/equal protection discussion)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (redefined liberty in context of sexual orientation; evolving-meaning discussion)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (animus/irrational prejudice as a basis for invalidating law under EP)
- Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (U.S. 2014) (democracy and deliberation in constitutional change; deference to voters)