IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION

)

General Synod of The United Church of Christ; )

Reverend Joseph Hoffman; Reverend Nancy )

Ellett Allison; Reverend Nathan King; Reverend )

Nancy Kraft; Rabbi Jonathan Freirich; Reverend )

Robin Tanner; Reverend Mark Ward; Reverend )

Dr. Nancy E. Petty; Kay Diane Ansley; Catherine )

“Cathy” McGaughey; Elizabeth “Lisa”

)

Cloninger; Kathleen Smith; Shauna Bragan; )

Stacy Maloney; Cathy Fry; Joanne Marinaro; )

Joel Blady; Jeffrey Addy; Betty Mack; and Carol )

Taylor;

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

) Civ. No. _______________

Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North

)

Carolina; Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds for )

Buncombe County; Wayne Nixon, Register of )

Deeds for Cabarrus County; Tonia Hampton, )

Register of Deeds for McDowell County; J. David )

Granberry, Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg )

County; Laura M. Riddick, Register of Deeds for Wake County; Ronald L. Moore, Buncombe County District Attorney; Roxann Vaneekhoven, Cabarrus County District Attorney; Bradley Greenway, McDowell County District Attorney; Andrew Murray, Mecklenburg County District Attorney; and Ned Mangum, Wake County

) ) ) ) ) )

District Attorney;

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION 1. Marriage is a public affirmation of love and respect, and the freedom to marry

confers upon individuals “a dignity and status of immense import.” United States v. Windsor,

133 S.Ct. 2675, 2692 (2013). A marriage embodies a mutual exchange of promises to support

1 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 29

and care for each other, and it fosters emotional, psychological, physical, financial, and spiritual well-being. In short, as the Supreme Court has noted, marriage is “the most important relation in life.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978).
2. When the government denies a group of people the right to marry without a rational reason for doing so, it imposes a severe “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” upon that group. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry and by prohibiting religious denominations even from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, the State of North Carolina stigmatizes same-sex couples, as well as the religious institutions and clergy that believe in equal rights.
3. Plaintiffs thus bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of, collectively, the “Marriage Laws” of the State, including Article XIV, Section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina (so-called, “Amendment One”), North Carolina General Statutes §§ 51-1, 51-1.2, 51-6, 51-7, and all other North Carolina laws that define marriage as exclusively between opposite-sex couples and that preclude—through the imposition of criminal penalties and otherwise— religious ministers, clergy, or anyone else from performing a ceremony of marriage for same-sex couples, thereby preventing couples in those congregations from freely participating in such religious ceremonies.
4. Plaintiffs to this suit fall into three categories: a. A religious denomination whose teachings embrace equal marriage rights for all persons regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender. The denomination seeks to enjoin and declare unconstitutional all laws that criminalize and prohibit rites that recognize and bless the union of loving couples of the same sex—couples
2 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 2 of 29

who, if they were of the opposite sex, could have their union recognized and blessed. This is referred to as the “Religious Denomination Plaintiff.” b. The second set of plaintiffs consists of religious ministers and clergy whose faiths teach, and whose congregations affirm, that all loving couples, regardless of sexual orientation and gender, should be permitted to marry in their places of worship and who wish to marry such couples as part of their ministerial calling. These plaintiffs are referred to as the “Clergy Plaintiffs” or “Minister Plaintiffs.” They ask this Court to enjoin and declare unconstitutional all laws that criminalize and prohibit ceremonies or rites that recognize and bless the marriage of loving couples of the same sex. c. The third set of plaintiffs are same-sex couples—many of whom are members of the Plaintiff Denomination and congregants of the Clergy Plaintiffs—who wish to marry in North Carolina in their homes of worship and under their religious traditions and receive all of the spiritual, psychological, financial, social, and legal benefits the State provides to married heterosexual spouses. They also ask this Court to enjoin and declare unconstitutional all laws that criminalize and prohibit ceremonies or rites that recognize and bless the religious marriage of loving couples of the same sex. They further ask the Court to enjoin and declare unconstitutional the Marriage Laws of North Carolina as a denial of equal protection and a violation of substantive due process that implicates their fundamental right to marry. These plaintiffs are referred to as the “Couple Plaintiffs.”
3 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 3 of 29

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This case raises questions under the Constitution of the United States and 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and, thus, this Court has jurisdiction over all claims for relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331.

6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all

defendants are residents of North Carolina and the majority of defendants reside in or have a

substantial presence in the Western District of North Carolina. Venue is also proper in this Court

because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.

7. All actions complained of herein were taken under color of state law, and all

Defendants are considered persons, for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, through which Plaintiffs

bring these claims.

The Denominational Plaintiff

THE PARTIES

8. The United Church of Christ (“UCC”) is a Protestant religious denomination

comprised of approximately 1.1 million members worshiping in over 5,100 Local Churches. The

UCC was formed in 1957 by the union of the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the General

Council of the Congregational Christian Churches of the United States in order to express more

fully the oneness in Christ of the churches composing it, to make effective their common witness

in Christ, and to serve God’s people in the world. In North Carolina, there are over 24,000 UCC

members and over 400 clergy authorized or affiliated with the United Church of Christ

worshiping at approximately 155 Local Churches. The United Church of Christ is a church of

extravagant welcome, proclaiming that no matter who you are and where you are on life’s

journey, you are welcome here. The United Church of Christ believes in a Still Speaking God,

4 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 4 of 29

and affirms the responsibility of the church in each generation to make the Christian faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God.
9. Plaintiff The General Synod of the United Church of Christ (“General Synod”) is the representative body of the UCC. The General Synod is the gathering of a faith community representative of the wider church to listen for and discern the call of God to the UCC. Delegates from the UCC’s 38 Conferences, regional judicatory bodies, meet at the General Synod every two years to deliberate, discern, and identify the mission of the wider church in God’s world and offer suggestions, invitations, challenges, and assistance in covenant with Local Churches and other settings as they engage in mission together.
10. The UCC has a rich heritage of supporting equal rights for all of God’s people and robust protection of their right freely to exercise their religious beliefs. For more than 30 years, the General Synod of the UCC has adopted resolutions affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) persons; calling for an end to discrimination and for equal protection under the law; deploring LGBT hate crimes and violence; supporting LGBT relationships and families; celebrating the gifts of LGBT persons for ministry; and encouraging all settings of the church to be open and affirming of LGBT persons, welcoming them and encouraging their participation in every aspect of the mission and ministry of the church.
11. In 1975, the tenth General Synod declared that “as a child of God, every person is endowed with worth and dignity that human judgment cannot set aside. Denial and violation of the civil liberties of the individual and her or his right to equal protection under the law undermines that worth and dignity and is, therefore, morally wrong.” In 1977, the eleventh General Synod urged that U.S. States legislatively recognize that marriage between a man and a woman is “not the only stable living unit which is entitled to legal protection in regards to socio-
5 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 5 of 29

economic rights and responsibilities.” In 1993, the nineteenth General Synod called on members of the church for greater leadership to end discrimination against gays and lesbians. And in 2005, the twenty-fifth General Synod affirmed equal marriage rights for couples regardless of sex. The resolution specifically opposed legislation that denies adult couples the right to marry based on gender.
12. In July of 1977, the General Synod adopted a resolution resulting in the development of a Book of Worship for the UCC, which is a resource of liturgies and orders of religious services and ceremonies for clergy. The Book of Worship also serves as an instrument in bringing members closer to the Holy One in whom we live and move and have our being.
13. As set forth in the UCC Book of Worship, the essence of marriage is a covenanted commitment that has its foundation in the faithfulness of God’s love. The marriage ceremony is the glad occasion on which two people unite in the mutual exchange of covenant promises. The presiding clergy person acts as an official representative of the church and gives the marriage the church’s blessing. The congregation joins in affirming the marriage and in offering support and thanksgiving for the new family.
14. After the General Synod’s 2005 resolution affirming marriage equality, and as a result of that resolution, the order for a religious marriage ceremony appearing in the UCC’s Book of Worship affirmed its support for “equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender.” As a result of the 2005 resolution, the UCC’s Book of Worship was modified so that it could be performed for same-sex couples in UCC Local Churches and by UCC authorized ministers. Importantly, the order for a Holy Union or religious marriage ceremony in the liturgy of the UCC has since 2005 been identical for same-sex and different-sex couples.
6 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 6 of 29

The Clergy Plaintiffs 15. Plaintiff Reverend Joe Hoffman is the Senior Minister of First Congregational
United Church of Christ in Asheville, North Carolina, where he has served since 1996. Rev. Hoffman received his undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina in Asheville in 1981, his Master’s Degree in Christian Education from Scarritt Graduate School in Nashville in 1984, and his Master’s of Divinity from Candler School of Theology at Emory University in 1992.
16. Plaintiff Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison is the Senior Pastor of Holy Covenant United Church of Christ in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she has served since 2004. Rev. Allison earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from Baylor University in 1974 and her Ph.D. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth in 1986.
17. Plaintiff Reverend Nathan King is the Senior Pastor of Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ in Concord, North Carolina, where he has served since 2001. Rev. King earned his Bachelor of Science from Gardner-Webb College in 1984 and his Master of Divinity degree from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest in 1990. He was licensed for ministry in the Southern Baptist Church in the early 1980s.
18. Plaintiff Reverend Nancy Kraft is pastor of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she has served since 2005. In 1974, Rev. Kraft graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Education from Bowling Green State University. She received her Masters in Divinity from Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio in 1979 and later received her doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh in 1991. In 1978, Rev. Kraft was certified for pastoral ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and was ordained on March 11, 1979.
7 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 7 of 29

19. Plaintiff Rabbi Jonathan Freirich is a congregational rabbi in Charlotte, North Carolina. In 1992, he graduated from Middlebury College in Vermont with a degree in Philosophy and History. In 1999, he graduated from the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Pennsylvania as an ordained rabbi. Rabbi Freirich is a longtime member of both the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA), and has served congregations that are part of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ).
20. Plaintiff Reverend Robin Tanner is the Lead Minister of the Piedmont Unitarian Universalist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she has served since 2010. She graduated from the University of Rochester after majoring in Religious Studies and Psychology. In 2009, Rev. Tanner subsequently completed her Masters of Divinity at Harvard. She was ordained as a Unitarian Universalist minister in 2009.
21. Plaintiff Reverend Mark Ward is a minister at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Asheville, North Carolina, where he has served since 2005. He received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from Earlham College in 1975, his Masters degree in Philosophy from Bryn Mawr College in 1976, and his Masters degree from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism in 1979. He worked in journalism in Charleston, West Virginia from 1979 to 1984 and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1984 until 2004. Near the end of his career in Milwaukee, Rev. Ward enrolled in Meadville Lombard Theological School of Chicago, Illinois, and earned his Masters of Divinity in 2004.
22. Plaintiff Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty is pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she has served in different capacities since 1992. Rev. Petty received her undergraduate degree in Religion from Gardner-Webb College (now
8 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 8 of 29

University) in 1985, her Masters of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1988, and her Doctor of Ministry from McCormick Theological Seminary in 1997. The Couple Plaintiffs
23. Plaintiff Kay Diane Ansley resides in Old Fort, North Carolina. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of West Georgia in 1983 and a degree from the American Institute for Paralegal Studies in 1993. She previously worked in law enforcement for 22 years and now works for a local physician as a Patient Scheduler and Medical Records Custodian. Diane is a member of First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville.
24. Diane resides in Old Fort with her partner of 14 years, Plaintiff Catherine “Cathy” McGaughey. In 1982, Cathy earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Georgia State University’s College of Urban Life. She currently works for a local physician as an Accounts Receivable Specialist and bookkeeper. She also does bookkeeping for two faith-based non-profit groups in Asheville and Georgia and for a small retail firm in Asheville. Cathy is on the Executive Board at First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville.
25. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Ansley and McGaughey would seek to be married.
26. Plaintiffs Ansley and McGaughey have applied for and been denied a marriage license.
27. Plaintiffs Ansley and McGaughey would like to have Rev. Hoffman perform a Holy Union religious marriage ceremony at First Congregational United Church of Christ.
28. Plaintiff Elizabeth “Lisa” Cloninger resides in Charlotte, North Carolina. Lisa has earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Child and Family Development from the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and a Master of Social Work degree from the University of North
9 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 9 of 29

Carolina-Chapel Hill. She is a unit supervisor with Mecklenburg County Children’s Developmental Services and is also an adjunct instructor in the Early Childhood Education program at Central Piedmont Community College. Lisa is an Elder at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ in Charlotte and currently serves as the President of the church’s Consistory.
29. For the past thirteen years Lisa has been the partner of Plaintiff Kathleen Smith. Kathleen received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Mars Hill University in 1975 and a Master of Education degree from Winthrop University in 1977. She has taught school and administered operations for a local arts education non-profit organization, as well as administering a major grant program at Central Piedmont Community College. She is currently on a contract assignment at Duke Energy through Business Control Systems. At Holy Covenant United Church of Christ, Kathleen has been a deacon and interim accompanist and has in the past chaired the Worship and Finance Committees. She currently leads the Communications Team.
30. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Cloninger and Smith would seek to be married.
31. Plaintiffs Cloninger and Smith have applied for and been denied a marriage license.
32. Plaintiffs Cloninger and Smith intend to have Rev. Allison perform a Holy Union religious marriage ceremony on October 3, 2014 at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ.
33. Plaintiff Shauna Bragan resides in Concord, North Carolina. Shauna received a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology in 2004 from Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina. Shauna is a published environmental scientist and currently works as a Customer Service Agent for a business that provides customer care, customer retention, and revenue recovery services to a host of industries, including financial services, telecommunications and
10 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 10 of 29

government. Shauna faithfully attends Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ in Concord, North Carolina.
34. Shauna resides with her partner, Plaintiff Stacy Maloney. Stacy earned her Bachelor of Science degree in 2004 in Physical Education. For the past seven years Stacy has worked as the adaptive physical education teacher in Cabarrus County. She has also taught a course on adapted sport at Wingate University. In August 2013, Stacy opened a day program for adults with disabilities in Cabarrus County. She also runs a summer program for students with disabilities in Cabarrus and surrounding counties. Stacy is an active member of Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ in Concord.
35. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Maloney and Bragan would seek to be married.
36. Plaintiffs Maloney and Bragan have applied for and been denied a marriage license.
37. Plaintiffs Maloney and Bragan would like to have a Holy Union religious marriage ceremony at Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ.
38. Plaintiff Cathy Fry resides in Huntersville, North Carolina, with her partner, Joanne Marinaro. Cathy graduated from Catawba College in 1980 with a degree in Psychology and from the University of North Carolina – Charlotte in 1988 with a Masters of Arts in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Cathy now owns and operates a small furniture company with her brother. Cathy has been a member of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church for about 25 years.
39. Since 1986, Cathy has been the partner of Plaintiff Joanne Marinaro. Joanne graduated from the University of Central Florida in 1984 with a degree in Criminal Justice. She
11 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 11 of 29

is a Senior Manager for a North Carolina based Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Joanne has been a member of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church for about 25 years.
40. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Fry and Marinaro would seek to be married.
41. Plaintiffs Fry and Marinaro have applied for and been denied a marriage license. 42. Plaintiffs Fry and Marinaro would like to have a wedding ceremony at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church performed by Pastor Nancy Kraft. 43. Plaintiff Joel Blady resides in Charlotte, North Carolina, with his partner, Jeffrey Addy. Joel graduated from Mercer County Community College in 1984 with a certificate of proficiency in mortuary science. In 1985, he received an Associate of Science degree from Mercer County Community College. He has worked in the funeral industry for the past 32 years. Joel has been a member of Temple Beth El and Temple Israel in Charlotte, North Carolina since 2004. 44. Plaintiff Jeffrey Addy resides in Charlotte, North Carolina, with his partner, Joel Blady. Jeffrey received an Associate’s Degree from Muskingum Technical College in Zanesville, Ohio in 2001. He currently works in the healthcare industry in Charlotte. Jeffrey began attending Temple Beth El in 2011 when he and Joel Blady first became a couple. 45. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Blady and Addy would seek to be married. 46. Plaintiffs Blady and Addy have not applied for a marriage license because it would be futile for them to do so. 47. Plaintiffs Blady and Addy would like to have a wedding ceremony at Temple Beth El performed by Rabbi Jonathan Freirich.
12 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 12 of 29

48. Plaintiff Betty Mack resides in Asheville, North Carolina. Betty is in her 70s and is retired. Betty is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Asheville, North Carolina.
49. Betty has been in a committed relationship with Carol Taylor for over 41 years. Carol, who is also in her 70s, is also retired. Carol is also a member of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Asheville, North Carolina.
50. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Mack and Taylor would seek to be married.
51. Plaintiffs Mack and Taylor have applied for and been denied a marriage license. 52. Plaintiffs Mack and Taylor would like to have a wedding ceremony at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation performed by Reverend Ward. 53. Plaintiffs file this case not to compel other faiths to conform to their religious beliefs but to assert their right to freely perform religious services and ceremonies consistent with their beliefs and practices, and to extend the equal protection of the laws to all of God’s children. Defendants 54. Defendant Roy Cooper is the Attorney General of North Carolina. In that capacity, it is his duty to appear for the State in any court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 114-2. It is the duty of Defendant Cooper to defend and enforce the laws of North Carolina. 55. Additionally, in that capacity, and among other relevant opinions, Defendant Cooper has advised that “a register of deeds would violate North Carolina law in issuing a marriage license to persons of the same gender. If, in issuing such a license, the register of deeds
13 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 13 of 29

operates in bad faith he may subject himself to [certain civil and criminal] penalties . . . .” Re: Advisory Opinion: Issuance of Marriage Licenses to Individuals of Same Gender; Penalties, N.C. Op. Att’y Gen., 2004 WL 871437 (Mar. 29, 2004).
56. The Office of the Attorney General recently re-affirmed that opinion, issuing a letter to Defendant Reisenger on October 15, 2013, stating that “issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple would be a violation of the law” of North Carolina.
57. Defendant Cooper and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 58. Defendant Drew Reisinger is the Register of Deeds for Buncombe County. In that capacity, he is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates. 59. Specifically, Defendant Reisinger presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted. 60. Defendant Reisinger and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 61. Defendant Ronald L. Moore is the District Attorney for Buncombe County. In that capacity, he is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within Buncombe County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 62. Defendant Moore and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 63. Defendant Wayne Nixon is the Register of Deeds for Cabarrus County. In that capacity, he is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates. 64. Specifically, Defendant Nixon presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted.
14 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 14 of 29

65. Defendant Nixon and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 66. Defendant Roxann Vaneekhoven is the District Attorney for Cabarrus County. In that capacity, she is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within Cabarrus County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 67. Defendant Vaneekhoven and her successors are sued in their official capacity only. 68. Defendant Tonia Hampton is the Register of Deeds for McDowell County. In that capacity, she is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates. 69. Specifically, Defendant Hampton presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted. 70. Defendant Hampton and her successors are sued in their official capacity only. 71. Defendant Bradley Greenway is the District Attorney for McDowell County. In that capacity, he is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within McDowell County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 72. Defendant Greenway and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 73. Defendant J. David Granberry is the Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg County. In that capacity, he is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates. 74. Specifically, Defendant Granberry presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted.
15 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 15 of 29

75. Defendant Granberry and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 76. Defendant Andrew Murray is the District Attorney for Mecklenburg County. In that capacity, he is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within Mecklenburg County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 77. Defendant Murray and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 78. Defendant Laura M. Riddick is the Register of Deeds for Wake County. In that capacity, she is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates. 79. Specifically, Defendant Riddick presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted. 80. Defendant Riddick and her successors are sued in their official capacity only. 81. Defendant Ned Mangum is the District Attorney for Wake County. In that capacity, he is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within Wake County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 82. Defendant Mangum and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 83. Defendants all have some connection with the enforcement of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 84. Defendants’ actions constitute actions under color of law.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The North Carolina Marriage Laws
85. North Carolina law delegates to religious ministers the authority to conduct marriage ceremonies in North Carolina for couples who have obtained a valid license to marry,
16 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 16 of 29

which marriages the State then recognizes as legally valid. As stated in North Carolina General Statute § 51-1, a “valid and sufficient marriage is created” when (1) the couple freely consent to the union “[i]n the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate” and “[w]ith the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife”; or (2) “[i]n accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.”
86. However, ministers and others who are authorized to conduct marriages in North Carolina are expressly precluded by State law from performing any ceremony of marriage between same-sex couples, even if their faith and religious beliefs allow them to conduct such ceremonies and recognize those marriages.
87. North Carolina statutory law limits the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. North Carolina General Statute § 51-1 also provides in relevant part: “A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife . . . .”
88. North Carolina statutory law explicitly provides that marriages by persons of the same gender are not valid. North Carolina General Statute § 51-1.2 provides: “Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.”
89. This prohibition also has been made part of the North Carolina constitution through Amendment One, which was approved in the 2011 legislative session of the North Carolina General Assembly and subsequently adopted by ballot initiative on May 8, 2012.
17 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 17 of 29

90. Amendment One appears in the North Carolina Constitution as Article XIV, Section 6 and states: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
91. If a minister conducts any marriage ceremony between same-sex couples, he or she is guilty of a crime:
a. North Carolina General Statute § 51-6 states: “Solemnization without license unlawful. No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant.”
b. North Carolina General Statute § 51-7 states: “Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”
18 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 18 of 29

92. Many of the justifications offered by public officials in support of Amendment One and the other Marriage Laws and prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying have been based on a particular religious view regarding marriage and a desire to denigrate same-sex relationships and demean same-sex couples. Statements in support of Amendment One included the following:
a. State Senator James Forrester: “The Lord intended for a family to have one man and one woman.”1
b. House Majority Leader Paul “Skip” Stam: “‘In countries around the world where they have legitimized same-sex marriage, marriage itself is de-legitimized,’ Stam said. ‘About a fourth of the world allows polygamy. Polygamy would be next.’”2
c. State Senator James Forrester: “We need to reach out to them and get them to change their lifestyle back to the one we accept”; “[The City of Asheville, North Carolina is] a cesspool of sin.”3
d. State Senator Wesley Meredith: “‘We need to regulate marriage because I believe that marriage is between a man and woman,’ [State Senator Wesley Meredith] said. Meredith said the Bible provides the basis that marriage should be limited to a relationship between a man and a woman.”4
1 State Senator James Forrester, Sponsor of Amendment One, Wedding Bills, The News & Observer (Mar. 2, 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/02/1022741/wedding-bills.html. 2 Craig Jarvis, Alan M. Wolf & Mary Cornatzer, GOP pushes same-sex marriage amendment, The News & Observer (Aug. 31, 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/31/1448973/gop-pushes-same-sex-marriageamendment.html#storylink=cpy. 3 Rob Schofield, Anti-gay lawmakers speak their (very troubled) minds, The Progressive Pulse (Sept. 9, 2011), http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2011/09/09/anti-gay-lawmakers-speak-their-very-troubled-minds. 4 Paul Woolverton, N.C. Senate Approves Amendment to Block Gay Marriage, Fayetteville Observer (Sept. 14, 2011), http://www.fayobserver.com/news/state/article_df7d48cf-1770-5f59-9975-11bc83b05347.html.
19 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 19 of 29

Impact Of And Irreparable Harm Caused By The North Carolina Marriage Laws 93. Marriage between two loving individuals is both a fundamental legal right and a
cornerstone of almost every religion. 94. Marriage creates mutual support systems and stable relationships for couples who
promise to spend their whole lives together. It creates more stable futures for the couples, and serves as a building block for larger family units. Married couples and their families also function as units within their religions and the larger communities in which they live.
95. The State of North Carolina, as well as the Federal Government, has chosen to recognize the societal importance of marriage by conferring benefits on married persons that it does not offer to single persons or even to couples that are not married. Among other things, married spouses may file joint tax returns, receive health benefits on a spouse’s health plan, have special rights when a spouse is hospitalized, and have certain automatic rights of survivorship upon a spouse’s death. As a result of the North Carolina Marriage laws, the Couple Plaintiffs, as well as all similarly situated individuals who reside in North Carolina and who wish to marry another same-sex person, are categorically denied these benefits.
96. The benefits of marriage are equally important and valid for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples.
97. The North Carolina Marriage Laws categorically and unconditionally prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage, and preclude the free and uninhibited exercise of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Under the North Carolina Marriage Laws, the Religious Denomination, Minister, and Couple Plaintiffs are precluded even from conducting a marriage ceremony of any kind between two same-sex individuals. This represents an unlawful government intervention into the internal structure and practices of Plaintiffs’ religions.
20 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 20 of 29

98. By depriving the Plaintiffs of the freedom to perform religious marriage ceremonies or to marry, North Carolina stigmatizes Plaintiffs and their religious beliefs, and the State relegates the Couple Plaintiffs to second-class status. The laws forbidding same-sex marriage tell Plaintiffs that their religious views are invalid and same-sex relationships are less worthy, thus humiliating each Plaintiff and denigrating the integrity and closeness of families and religious organizations, depriving Plaintiffs of the inclusive religious community of family units they wish to establish.
99. Furthermore, the North Carolina Marriage Laws, by preventing Plaintiffs from fully expressing their embrace and support of same-sex marriage on an equal basis with opposite-sex marriage, force Plaintiffs to either abstain from the recognition of marriage entirely, or else convey, against their will, the impression that opposite-sex marriages are more valued in the eyes of their respective faiths.
100. Defendants, in executing and enforcing the Marriage Laws, are acting under color of state law and thus depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
CLAIMS COUNT I First Amendment — Free Exercise (All Plaintiffs) 101. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 102. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .” 103. This prohibition is extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
21 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 21 of 29

104. The North Carolina Marriage Laws make it a criminal offense for any “minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of [North Carolina],” to solemnize the marriage of a same-sex couple. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-7.
105. Plaintiffs are (1) a religious denomination, (2) ministers, and (3) congregants whose religious teaching and beliefs embrace same-sex marriage and allow such couples full access to the marriage rites of that faith, solemnizing and celebrating their marriage.
106. Under North Carolina law, the Clergy Plaintiffs are prohibited under threat of criminal prosecution from performing any such religious ceremonies, and the Couple Plaintiffs are prohibited from becoming married in the tradition of their respective faiths. Such laws violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
107. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature, subject them to criminal sanctions, and cause irreparable harm by burdening the free exercise of religion without any justification, let alone a compelling one.
108. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in this Complaint.
COUNT II First Amendment — Expressive Association
(All Plaintiffs) 109. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 110. “[I]mplicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment is a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 647 (2000) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Government may not burden
22 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 22 of 29

this freedom through “intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association.” Id. at 648.
111. This prohibition is extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 112. The practice of conducting and participating in religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples is a constitutionally protected activity of expressive association. As reflected above, the religious teachings and activities of the Plaintiffs reflect the belief that same-sex couples wishing to be married should be afforded rights equal to, and be treated with the same dignity as, opposite-sex couples. 113. For example, the Denominational Plaintiff has an almost 40-year history of expressing support for, and advocating the equality of, same-sex couples, and amended its Book of Worship to permit a common religious ceremony for the religious recognition of a marriage of adult couples, be they gay or straight. 114. The North Carolina Marriage Laws, which make it a criminal offense for any “minister, officer, or any other person” to solemnize the marriage of a same-sex couple, impermissibly intrude on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by imposing significant burdens on their rights of expression association. 115. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature, subject them to criminal sanctions, and cause irreparable harm by burdening their associational rights without any justification, let alone a compelling one. 116. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in this Complaint.
23 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 23 of 29

COUNT III Denial of Due Process — Fundamental Right to Marry
(On Behalf of the Couple Plaintiffs) 117. The Couple Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 118. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes any State from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Governmental interference with a fundamental right may be sustained only upon a showing that the legislation is closely tailored to serve an important governmental interest. 119. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, marriage is a fundamental right, and choices about marriage, like choices about other aspects of family, are a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. 120. North Carolina law denies the Couple Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples this fundamental right by denying them access to the state-recognized institution of marriage. 121. North Carolina can demonstrate no important interest to justify denying the Couple Plaintiffs this fundamental right. Indeed, North Carolina cannot demonstrate that the denial is tailored to any legitimate interest at all. 122. North Carolina’s prohibition of marriage between persons of the same sex violates the Due Process Clause. 123. The Couple Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm. 124. Accordingly, the Couple Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in this Complaint.
24 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 24 of 29

COUNT IV Denial of Equal Protection
(Couple Plaintiffs) 125. The Couple Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 126. Article XIV, Section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina and North Carolina General Statutes §§ 51-1, 51-1.2, 51-6, and 51-7 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs. 127. These laws restrict civil marriage to individuals of the opposite sex; gay and lesbian individuals are unable to marry. T hus, North Carolina law treats similarly-situated people differently by providing civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, but not to same-sex couples, which are expressly precluded from enjoying the panoply of rights associated with marriage. Gay men and lesbians are, therefore, unequal in the eyes of state law, and their families are denied the same respect as officially sanctioned families of opposite-sex individuals. 128. By purposefully denying civil marriage to gay and lesbian individuals, North Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals are unable to enter into marriages available through the State to opposite-sex couples solely because of their sexual orientation. A ccordingly, these laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by casting gays and lesbians into disfavored legal status and categorizing them as “second-class citizens.” 129. These laws also violate the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminate on the basis of sex. Under these laws, a man who wishes to marry a man may not do so because he
25 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 25 of 29

is a man, and a woman may not marry a woman because she is a woman. Thus, the laws limit civil marriage on the basis of sex.
130. North Carolina’s Marriage Laws directly and substantially interfere with the Couple Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry. The right to marry is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment as a vital personal right that is integral to an individual’s identity, autonomy, dignity, and intimate associations. North Carolina’s laws restricting civil marriage to oppositesex couples infringe on the fundamental right of gay and lesbian individuals to marry without serving any legitimate governmental interest, let alone any important or compelling interest to which they are narrowly tailored.
131. Whether under a strict or heightened scrutiny analysis, or under a more lenient rational-basis analysis, these provisions of North Carolina law and the State’s constitution do not bear any relation to a legitimate governmental purpose and, thus, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
132. The Couple Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm.
133. Accordingly, the Couple Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in this Complaint.
IRREPARABLE INJURY 134. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 135. Plaintiffs are severely and irreparably injured by the challenged state laws and constitutional provision that violate the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. By way of example only, Plaintiffs’ injuries
26 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 26 of 29

as a result of these discriminatory laws include the impairment of the free exercise of religion for all Plaintiffs; the deprivation of rights guaranteed the Couple Plaintiffs by the Fourteenth Amendment; and the severe humiliation, emotional distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, and stigma caused by the inability of the Couple Plaintiffs to marry and have society accord their unions and their families the same respect and dignity enjoyed by opposite-sex unions and families. Because the Couple Plaintiffs cannot marry under North Carolina law, they cannot currently receive social security benefits or favorable treatment on income and estate taxes prescribed by State law. They also cannot currently claim benefits under various federal laws that apply only to married couples. Plaintiffs’ injuries will be redressed only if this Court declares these provisions unconstitutional and enjoins Defendants from enforcing them.
136. An actual and judicially cognizable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether the laws violate the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants are presently enforcing these State laws to the detriment of Plaintiffs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court:
A. To issue a declaratory judgment that the statutes and North Carolina constitutional provision at issue in this case, as applied to Plaintiffs, violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs;
B. To issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against any and all laws that impose or threaten criminal sanctions or otherwise prohibit the performance of religious rites that solemnize the union of same-sex couples, as denying all Plaintiffs their First Amendment, Free Exercise right to engage in such religious ceremonies, and their right to expressive association under the First Amendment.
27 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 27 of 29

C. To issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and all those acting in concert with them to prohibit enforcement of laws that deprive the Couple Plaintiffs and all other same-sex couples of the right to marry in accordance with Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. To issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and all those acting in concert with them to prohibit enforcement of laws that deprive the Minister Plaintiffs the right to perform such marriages and give them legal effect and directing the Defendants to recognize marriages validly entered into by the Couple Plaintiffs and other samesex couples.
E. To award to Plaintiffs reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees; and F. To award such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and reasonable.
28 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 28 of 29

Dated: April 28, 2014
Jonathan S. Martel David J. Weiner Samuel Witten Sarah E. Warlick Thomas A. Glazer Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 942-5470 Fax: (202) 942-5999 Email: jonathan.martel@aporter.com Pro Hac Vice Applications Pending
Sean Morris Arnold & Porter LLP 777 South Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 243-4222 Email: sean.morris@aporter.com Pro Hac Vice Application Pending
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ S. Luke Largess S. Luke Largess /s/ Jacob H. Sussman Jacob Sussman /s/ John W. Gresham John W. Gresham Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: (704) 338-1220 Fax: (704) 338-1312 Email: llargess@tinfulton.com Email: jsussman@tinfulton.com Email: jgresham@tinfulton.com
Mark Kleinschmidt Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 312 West Franklin Street Chapel Hill NC 27516 Phone: (919) 240-7089 Fax: (919) 240-7822 Email: mkleinschmidt@tinfulton.com

29 Case 3:14-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 29 of 29

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION

)

General Synod of The United Church of Christ; )

Reverend Joseph Hoffman; Reverend Nancy )

Ellett Allison; Reverend Nathan King; Reverend )

Nancy Kraft; Rabbi Jonathan Freirich; Reverend )

Robin Tanner; Reverend Mark Ward; Reverend )

Dr. Nancy E. Petty; Kay Diane Ansley; Catherine )

“Cathy” McGaughey; Elizabeth “Lisa”

)

Cloninger; Kathleen Smith; Shauna Bragan; )

Stacy Maloney; Cathy Fry; Joanne Marinaro; )

Joel Blady; Jeffrey Addy; Betty Mack; and Carol )

Taylor;

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North

) )

Civ. No. 3:14-cv-213

Carolina; Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds for )

Buncombe County; Wayne Nixon, Register of )

Deeds for Cabarrus County; Tonia Hampton, )

Register of Deeds for McDowell County; J. David )

Granberry, Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg )

County; Laura M. Riddick, Register of Deeds for Wake County; Ronald L. Moore, Buncombe County District Attorney; Roxann Vaneekhoven, Cabarrus County District Attorney; Bradley Greenway, McDowell County District Attorney; Andrew Murray, Mecklenburg County District Attorney; and Ned Mangum, Wake County

) ) ) ) ) )

District Attorney;

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .................................................................................................... 5 1. THE CURRENT MARRIAGE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA ........................................ 6 2. PLAINTIFFS .......................................................................................................................... 9
A. The Denominational Plaintiff ............................................................................................. 9 B. The Clergy Plaintiffs......................................................................................................... 10 C. The Plaintiff Couples ........................................................................................................ 13 3. DEFENDANTS .................................................................................................................... 16 4. QUESTIONS PRESENTED................................................................................................. 17 5. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 17
A. North Carolina’s Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause............................................................................................................. 18 B. North Carolina’s Ban on Religious Marriage Ceremonies Violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights to Expressive Association..................................................................... 22 C. North Carolina’s Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment................................................................................................... 26 D. North Carolina’s Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .................................................................................. 29 E. The Marriage Laws Cannot Withstand Rational Basis Review; The Laws Therefore Fail Under Any Form Of Heightened Scrutiny..................................................................... 31 F. The Balance of the Equities Favors Plaintiffs............................................................... 37 G. A Preliminary Injunction Is In The Public Interest....................................................... 38 6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 38
i Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 2 of 47

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

C ASE S

Page(s)

Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530 (1993) ...............................................................................................................6, 7

Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-5006 (10th Cir. Jan. 27, 2014).................................................................................................................5, 30, 32

Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2004).....................................................................................................21

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)...................................................................................................................1

Bostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13cv395, 2014 WL 561978 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 141169 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014)...................................................................................5, 28, 30, 32

Bourke v. Beshear, No. 3:13–CV–750–H, 2014 WL 556729 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-5291 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014)............................................................................5, 30, 32

Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)......................................................................................................... passim

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).................................................................................................................18

Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cnty., 722 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................37, 38

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).................................................................................................................20

City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985).................................................................................................................29

De Leon v. Perry, No. SA–13–CV–00982–OLG, 2014 WL 715741 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2014)......................................................5, 28, 30, 32

DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12–CV–10285, 2014 WL 1100794 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2014)......................................................................5, 30, 32, 33

ii Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 3 of 47

Employment Division, Dep’t of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).....................................................................................................20, 21, 26
Faust v. S.C. State Highway Dep’t, 721 F.2d 934 (4th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................30
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).............................................................................................................1, 27
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993).................................................................................................................32
Henry v. Greenville Airport Comm’n, 284 F.2d 631 (4th Cir. 1960) (per curiam)...............................................................................36
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 132 S.Ct. 694 (S. Ct. 2012) ......................................................................................3, 18, 19, 24
Houey v. Carolina First Bank, 890 F. Supp. 2d 611 (W.D.N.C. 2012) ....................................................................................18
Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995).................................................................................................................25
Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................22
Johnson v. Bergland, 586 F.2d 993 (4th Cir. 1978) ...................................................................................................36
Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013), appeal docketed, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2013) .......................................................................................................................... passim
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)......................................................................................................... passim
Lee v. Orr, No. 13-CV-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) ..................................................5
Legend Night Club v. Miller, 637 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................36
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)...........................................................................................................1, 27, 31
iii Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 4 of 47

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996).................................................................................................................27
MacDonald v. Moose, 710 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................30
Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976) (per curiam) ............................................................................................30
Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................31
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)...................................................................................................................1
Mobil Oil v. Attorney General of Com. of VA, 940 F.2d 73 (4th Cir. 1991) .....................................................................................................37
Nev. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003).................................................................................................................34
Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albemarle Cnty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................38
Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2013), appeal docketed, No. 14-3057 (6th Cir. Jan. 22, 2014) ........................................................................................................................5, 28, 33
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984).................................................................................................................34
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...............................................................................31, 34
Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2006).....................................................................................................19
Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).................................................................................................................26
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).................................................................................................3, 23, 25, 28
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).................................................................................................................32
Saint v. Neb. Sch. Activities Ass’n, 684 F. Supp. 626 (D. Neb. 1988) .............................................................................................38
iv Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 5 of 47

Tanco v. Haslam, 3:13-CV-01159, 2014 WL 997525 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-5297 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014)...............................................................................................5
Thigpen v. Cooper, 739 S.E. 2d 165 (N.C. App. 2013)...........................................................................................17
Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................30
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).............................................................................................................21, 26
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).................................................................................................................31
United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013) ...................................................................................................... passim
Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................30, 31
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).................................................................................................................29
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008).....................................................................................................................18
WV Ass’n of Club Owners v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................18
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).................................................................................................................26
C ONST IT UT IONS
N.C. Const. Art. XIV, § 6 ............................................................................................................1, 2
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 .....................................................................................................3, 26
STATUTE S
1 U.S.C. § 7......................................................................................................................................6
28 U.S.C. § 1738C ...........................................................................................................................6
42 U.S.C. § 1983..............................................................................................................................4
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-1..............................................................................................................1, 6, 8
v Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 6 of 47

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-1.2...........................................................................................................1, 2, 6 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-6..............................................................................................................1, 6, 8 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-7............................................................................................................ passim N.C. Gen. Stat. § 114-2..................................................................................................................16 Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996) ...........................................................................................6 OTHE R AUTHOR ITIE S Douglas Laycock, et al., Afterword, in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty (2008) .........21 Fredric J. Bold, Jr., Comment, Vows to Collide: The Burgeoning Conflict Between
Religious Institutions and Same-Sex Marriage Antidiscrimination Laws, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 179 (2009) ...................................................................................................................21 North Carolina General Assembly, http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&Bil lID= S514&votesToView=all....................................................................................................7 North Carolina State Board of Elections, http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/85942/en/summary.html. .............................7 Paul Woolverton, N.C. Senate Approves Amendment to Block Gay Marriage, Fayetteville Observer (Sept. 14, 2011), http://www.fayobserver.com/news/state/article_df7d48cf1770-5f59-9975-11bc83b05347.html ..................................................................................7, 23 Re: Advisory Opinion: Issuance of Marriage Licenses to Individuals of Same Gender; Penalties, N.C. Op. Att’y Gen., 2004 WL 871437 (2004)...............................................6, 8, 16 House Report 104-664: Defense of Marriage Act, H.R. REP. 104-664, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905. ...................................................................................................................7 Rob Schofield, Anti-gay lawmakers speak their (very troubled) minds, The Progressive Pulse (Sept. 9, 2011), http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2011/09/09/anti-gay-lawmakersspeak-their-very-troubled-minds..............................................................................................22 Wedding Bills, The News and Observer (Mar. 2, 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/02/1022741/wedding-bills.html...........................7, 22
vi Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 7 of 47

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Marriage is the fundamental building block for organizing family, community and society. It is both of “basic importance in our society,” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376 (1971), and “sacred,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). It is “the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution.” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888). As Mildred Loving explained on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), striking down Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law under which she and her husband had been convicted and sentenced to jail for marrying each other: “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others.... I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.” Mildred Loving, Loving for All, Public Statement on the 40th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia (June 12, 2007). Plaintiffs in this action are a religious denomination and clergy from various traditions whose religious teachings and beliefs embrace same-sex marriage and afford equal access to the marriage rites of their faith to all committed couples who wish to be married within their faith and community in North Carolina. Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of, collectively, the “Marriage Laws” of the State of North Carolina, including Article XIV, Section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina (“Amendment One”) and North Carolina General Statutes §§ 51-1, 51-1.2, 51-6, 51-7. The Marriage Laws recognize only one type of marriage: a union between a male and female person. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-1. Marriages between same-sex couples are not valid.
1 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 8 of 47

North Carolina General Statute § 51-1.2 mandates: “Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.” Amendment One enshrined this prohibition in the North Carolina Constitution: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” N.C. Const. art. XIV, § 6.
But the Marriage Laws do not simply withhold the benefits of marriage from same-sex couples; the Laws directly regulate religious practice. Ministers authorized to conduct marriages in North Carolina are barred by the Marriage Laws from performing any ceremony of marriage between same-sex couples, even if their faith and religious beliefs allow them to consecrate same-sex unions in the same manner as opposite-sex marriages. A minister who, following his or her own religious beliefs, performs a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple, commits a crime according to North Carolina law. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-7. Under threat of criminal sanction, and at risk of civil suit, these laws thereby attempt to bar clergy and same-sex couples from partaking in marriage rites in North Carolina that build the families and faith communities that are essential to the vitality of their religions.
The Marriage Laws violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in several ways. First, the Laws violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because they impermissibly chill religious practice by purporting to tell clergy -- backed by the full force of criminal law and threat of civil liability -- what religious ceremonies they may perform. The Marriage Laws accomplish this unconstitutional regulation by specifying that ministers who “solemnize” a marriage without a license, available only to opposite-sex couples, may be sued civilly and prosecuted criminally. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-7. By regulating the conduct of clergy in performing religious rites and criminalizing those clergy who “solemnize” marriages -- i.e.,
2 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 9 of 47

perform the religious rite that their faith allows -- the Marriage Laws impermissibly interfere with an “internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C., 132 S.Ct. 694, 707 (2012). Of course, the Marriage Laws thus impact the Plaintiff Couples who wish to marry within their faith communities in North Carolina. Accordingly, the Marriage Laws violate the Free Exercise Clause as to all Plaintiffs.
Second, the Marriage Laws violate the First Amendment’s “right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984) (emphasis added). “[W]hen the State interferes with individuals’ selection of those with whom they wish to join in a common endeavor, freedom of association . . . may be implicated.” Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 678 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Government, including state governments by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, may not burden this freedom through “intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association.” Id. at 648 (internal quotation marks omitted). The expressive acts of conducting and participating in a religious marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple that reflects a shared theological belief of those present is constitutionally protected.
Third, the Marriage Laws violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which precludes any State from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. It is well established that marriage is a fundamental right and that choices about marriage, like choices about other aspects of family, are a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Marriage Laws unlawfully burden that fundamental constitutional right.
3 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 10 of 47

Finally, the Marriage Laws also violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender, classifying gay and lesbian individuals as second-class citizens with disfavored legal status. The laws treat similarlysituated people differently without a rational basis by sanctioning and providing the benefits of marriage for opposite-sex couples, but not to same-sex couples. Gays and lesbians are, therefore, unequal in the eyes of North Carolina law, and their families are denied the same rights and respect afforded to families of opposite-sex individuals.
Because the Marriage Laws implicate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, expressive association, due process, and equal protection, they are properly subject to heightened if not strict scrutiny. Moreover, the Marriage Laws are not justified by a compelling or significant state interest and, even if they were, they are not narrowly or closely tailored. In any event, even without strict scrutiny, the Marriage Laws cannot withstand scrutiny under even the rational basis test. As nine federal courts have recognized over the past ten months, state laws that ban same-sex couples from marrying, like the Marriage Laws, are arbitrary and irrational and cannot be justified by any legitimate governmental purpose. As the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal district courts have recognized, laws based on animus and moral condemnation of same-sex couples are unconstitutional under the rational basis test. That is true here.
Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to protect rights secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction to prevent these violations of their constitutional rights from continuing
4 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 11 of 47

and submit this memorandum of law and appendix of exhibits in support of their motion.
Plaintiffs can establish each of the elements required to grant a preliminary injunction:
(1) Plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success on the merits. In recent months, nine
district courts have struck down restrictions on same-sex marriage, including courts in Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, Illinois, Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Utah.1 No courts have
upheld such a ban. The denial of constitutional rights at issue in this case cannot withstand any
level of constitutional scrutiny.
(2) Plaintiffs are subject to ongoing irreparable harm. Plaintiffs are currently deprived of
fundamental constitutional rights secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This
alone is sufficient basis to establish irreparable harm. Moreover, same-sex couples are deprived
of the same rights and benefits of marriage that are afforded opposite-sex couples.
(3) The balance of the equities favors Plaintiffs. There is no harm to the State in
extending the right to marry same-sex couples.
(4) The public interest is best served by upholding Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Because this suit challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of North Carolina’s
marriage statutes and the state constitutional provision known as Amendment One, Plaintiffs first
set out those laws and then describe how the Marriage Laws impacts them.
1 See DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12–CV–10285, 2014 WL 1100794 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, 3:13-CV-01159, 2014 WL 997525 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-5297 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, No. SA–13–CV–00982–OLG, 2014 WL 715741 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2014); Lee v. Orr, No. 13-CV8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014); Bostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13cv395, 2014 WL 561978 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-1169 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014); Bourke v. Beshear, No. 3:13–CV–750–H, 2014 WL 556729 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-5291 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-5006 (10th Cir. Jan. 27, 2014); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 1:13-CV-501, 2013 WL 7869139 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013), appeal docketed, No. 14-3057 (6th Cir. Jan. 22, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013), appeal docketed, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2013).
5 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 12 of 47

1. THE CURRENT MARRIAGE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina law has three components that create the constitutional issues in this case
(referenced collectively as the “Marriage Laws”). First, the laws limit marriage only to heterosexual couples and explicitly reject the
validity of same-sex marriage. A lawful marriage requires the “consent of a male and female person” to “take each other as husband and wife.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-1. Only a man and woman can obtain a license to marry. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-6; see also Re: Advisory Opinion: Issuance of Marriage Licenses to Individuals of Same Gender; Penalties, N.C. Op. Att’y Gen., 2004 WL 871437, at *2 (Mar. 29, 2004) (expressing opinion that “a register of deeds would violate North Carolina law in issuing a marriage license to persons of the same gender”).
The North Carolina General Assembly voted in June 1996 to expressly prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages following the first court ruling, from the Hawaii Supreme Court, permitting a state constitutional challenge to proceed against a same-sex marriage ban. See Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530 (1993). Baehr triggered a wave of legislation at the state and federal level to expressly deny the validity of any such marriages. The North Carolina law passed after the legislature obtained an advisory opinion from the Attorney General about the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states,2 and it established that “[m]arriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-1.2.3
2 See RE: Advisory Opinion: Validity of Same-Sex Marriages Performed in Other States, N.C.G.S. §51-1, N.C. Op. Att’y Gen., 1996 WL 925102 (May 14, 1996). 3 The federal government similarly responded to Baehr with the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). See Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996) (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C). Indeed, the House Judiciary Committee’s 1996 Report explicitly called for DOMA as a response to Baehr, because “a redefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such couples eligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits.” House Report 104-664: Defense of Marriage Act, H.R. REP. 104-664, 10, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905, 2914.
6 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 13 of 47

In 1998, Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment overturning Baehr and defining marriage as exclusively between opposite-sex couples. This prompted a second wave of lawmaking against same-sex marriage -- this time in the form of state constitutional amendments. On April 6, 2011, legislators introduced Senate Bill 514, later to become known as Amendment One. The bill sought to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for a popular vote. On September 12, 2011, the bill passed the North Carolina House by a vote of 75 to 42. One day later the bill passed the North Carolina Senate by a vote of 30 to 16.4 Amendment One was placed on the May 8, 2012 primary ballot in North Carolina.
The measure’s proponents repeatedly invoked moral condemnation of and religious opposition to same-sex marriage. State Senator James Forrester explained his support for the amendment because “[t]he Lord intended for a family to have one man and one woman.”5 Another proponent, State Senator Wesley Meredith, argued that “the Bible provides the basis that marriage should be limited to a relationship between a man and a woman.”6 On May 8, 2012, Amendment One passed with 61.04% of the popular vote.7 Thus, North Carolina law unequivocally bans same-sex marriage.
The second aspect of state law giving rise to this lawsuit is that North Carolina deputizes ordained ministers to solemnize marriages through religious ceremonies that give the marriage legal effect. Such marriage ceremonies occur when a man and woman declare their consent to
4 The vote history of SB 514 is available on the website of the North Carolina General Assembly at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID= S514&votesToView=all. 5 Wedding Bills, The News and Observer (Mar. 2, 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/02/1022741/wedding-bills.html. 6 Paul Woolverton, N.C. Senate Approves Amendment to Block Gay Marriage, Fayetteville Observer (Sept. 14, 2011), http://www.fayobserver.com/news/state/article_df7d48cf-1770-5f59-9975-11bc83b05347.html. 7 The full election results are available on the website of the North Carolina State Board of Elections at http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/85942/en/summary.html.
7 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 14 of 47

marry either in the “presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination” or “a minister authorized by a church,” and that minister then declares them “husband and wife.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-1(1). A marriage can also occur “[i]n accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-1(2). Thus, religious rites have legal as well as ecclesiastical effect.
Third, North Carolina restricts the religious practices of those deputized ministers. It requires for any “marriage ceremony” that the minister must have a license for the marriage of the couple. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-6 (“No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant.”). But only a man and woman may obtain that license. See Re: Advisory Opinion: Issuance of Marriage Licenses to Individuals of Same Gender; Penalties, N.C. Op. Att’y Gen., 2004 WL 871437, at *2 (2004). And any minister who “marries any couple without a license” commits a Class 1 misdemeanor and, for each such religious ceremony, may be subject to unlimited civil claims, each seeking a $200 levy. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-7.
Thus, North Carolina law authorizes the use of religious rites to marry persons of the opposite sex, but threatens criminal sanctions and civil liability to any minister who would solemnize by religious ritual the union of a couple of the same sex.
8 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 15 of 47

2. PLAINTIFFS Plaintiffs consist of clergy from across faith traditions and their congregants, as well as a
religious denomination of more than 1.1 million members, all of whom seek to vindicate fundamental First Amendment rights to the free exercise of their faith and the right to expressive association. Plaintiffs come from different faiths—United Church of Christ, Lutheran (ELCA), Unitarian Universalist, Baptist, and Jewish—but all suffer the same harm: the infringement of religious liberty and expressive association in violation of the First Amendment. All Plaintiffs share the religious belief that same-sex couples can and should have access to religious marriage rites unfettered by state laws threatening prosecution and civil liability for exercising such beliefs.
The “Plaintiff Couples,” who are all in loving and committed relationships and wish to marry—Elizabeth “Lisa” Cloninger and Kathleen Smith, Diane Ansley and Cathy McGaughey, Shauna Bragan and Stacy Maloney, Cathy Fry and Joanne Marinaro, Joel Blady and Jeffrey Addy, and Betty Mack and Carol Taylor—suffer an additional harm: the violation of their recognized Fourteenth Amendment rights to marry. For these Plaintiffs, their equal protection and due process rights overcome any purported justification the State of North Carolina might offer to defend Amendment One and the State’s Marriage Laws.
A. The Denominational Plaintiff Plaintiff the General Synod of the United Church of Christ (“General Synod”) is the representative body of a Protestant religious denomination consisting of approximately 1.1 million members in more than 5,100 churches around the United States. General Synod Decl. ¶ 3. In North Carolina, the UCC has over 24,000 members and over 400 clergy authorized or affiliated with the UCC worshipping at approximately 155 Local Churches. Id. The UCC has a
9 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 16 of 47

rich heritage of supporting equal rights for all of God’s people and robust protection of their right freely to exercise their religious beliefs. Id. ¶ 6.
B. The Clergy Plaintiffs The performance of religious marriage ceremonies is a core function and purpose of UCC clergy. As Plaintiff Reverend Nancy Allison explains, her role as Senior Pastor at Holy Covenant in Charlotte includes “helping committed couples enter this holy and sacred covenant. In doing so, I help these committed couples become one, fulfill their promises to one another, love and serve God, honor Christ and each other, and rejoice in the power of the Holy Spirit.” Allison Decl. ¶ 6. Amendment One and North Carolina’s other marriage laws, however, prohibit UCC clergy from performing these critically important religious rites to solemnize the union of same-sex congregant couples without threat of criminal prosecution and civil penalty. Id. ¶ 11; Hoffman Decl. ¶ 8; King Decl. ¶ 11. As a result, these UCC pastors are unable to carry out this fundamental and profoundly important function in their respective roles as spiritual leaders of their congregations. The harmful consequences are many and ongoing. Because of North Carolina’s marriage ban, many members of these congregations have been married outside the context of their faith community. As Plaintiff Reverend Joseph Hoffman of First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville explains: “Consequently, our church community has not been present for these most important ceremonies. I have felt tremendous grief—for the couples and for the congregation—that we have not been able to perform these ceremonies in our church.” Hoffman Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff Reverend Nathan King of Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ in Concord concurs: “[North Carolina’s marriage ban] causes a sense of separation from friends and family as well as fellow church members who could normally participate in a wedding more
10 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 17 of 47

easily and more fully. Simply put, the ban on marriage equality limits the accessibility of our congregation to share in one another’s joy at a supremely significant time in the life of both couple and congregation.” King Decl. ¶ 9. Reverend Allison is similarly troubled by the burden North Carolina’s Marriage Laws place on her ability and the ability of her congregation to “form a faith community of our choosing consistent with the principles of our faith.” Allison Decl. ¶ 13.
Faith leaders from other congregations are similarly burdened and precluded from carrying out a fundamental aspect of their respective religious traditions with respect to a specific segment of their congregations. For example, Plaintiff Reverend Nancy Kraft, an ordained minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, describes how “[i]t is central” to her role as pastor “to promote and support families.” Kraft Decl. ¶ 8. According to Reverend Kraft: “The family unit that seeks to be intentional about its faith and religious practice is critically important to continuing the Lutheran faith and our values. Marriage is an important function in providing stability for any family, whether it includes two committed adults of the same sex or opposite sex.” Id. North Carolina’s marriage ban directly infringes upon Reverend Kraft’s ecclesiastical duties in practicing her Lutheran faith and its values. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Reverend Kraft further understands that, based on North Carolina’s marriage laws, solemnizing the same-sex relationships of her congregants exposes her to possible criminal prosecution and civil penalty. Id. ¶ 9.
Plaintiff Reverend Robin Tanner and Plaintiff Reverend Mark Ward, both ministers of Unitarian Universalist congregations, express comparable harms when describing how North Carolina’s marriage ban directly infringes upon their ability to lead their respective congregations. Reverend Tanner is unable to fulfill her pastoral duties at Piedmont Unitarian
11 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 18 of 47

Universalist Church in Charlotte because she cannot solemnize committed relationships of two people of the same sex within her church. Tanner Decl. ¶ 8. Reverend Ward of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Asheville concurs: “I firmly believe that my deepest faith and my pastoral role at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Asheville includes solemnizing the committed relationship of any couple in the church, whether they are of the same sex or of the opposite sex.” Ward Decl. ¶ 13.
Both Reverend Tanner and Reverend Ward further understand that based on North Carolina’s marriage laws, solemnizing same-sex relationships of their congregants exposes them to possible criminal prosecution and civil penalty. Tanner Decl. ¶ 9; Ward Decl. ¶ 12. Ward stresses that North Carolina law as currently fashioned “impedes the development of the spiritual community in a church like the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Asheville.” Ward Decl. ¶ 13.
Plaintiff Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, who practices in accordance with Judaism’s Reform and Reconstructionist movements, attests that North Carolina’s ban on same sex marriage prevents him from “discharg[ing] [his] responsibilities as a rabbi who helps create families.” Freirich Decl. ¶ 8. Consequently, Rabbi Freirich is prevented from carrying out his rabbinical duties: “Assisting couples receive the official sanction of their faith communities helps promote healthy communal structures, stable families, a welcoming and inclusive religious community, and faith in God. Indeed, promoting the creation and stability of Jewish family units is crucial to transmitting and continuing the Jewish faith and values. Inclusion of same-sex couples and families is crucial to transmitting and continuing these Jewish values. Without the ability to exercise my responsibility to assist in marrying all those in our congregations, the State has hindered my ability to fulfill my role as a rabbi.” Id. ¶ 8. Rabbi Freirich further understands that
12 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 19 of 47

based on North Carolina’s marriage laws, solemnizing same-sex relationships of his congregants exposes him to possible criminal prosecution and civil penalty. Id. ¶ 9.
Plaintiff Reverend Nancy Petty of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh attests that “North Carolina’s ban on marriage equality has placed a burden on my ability to minister to all of my congregants as equals. It violates my belief that all people are created equal and that God blesses all of our faithful relationships.” Petty Decl. ¶ 9. As the leader of a Baptist congregation that was excluded from the state and Southern Baptist Conventions for openly embracing LGBT persons, she understands the consequences of religious convictions. Id. ¶ 6. Reverend Petty further understands that based on North Carolina’s marriage laws, solemnizing same-sex relationships of her congregants exposes her to possible criminal prosecution and civil penalty. Id. ¶ 9.
C. The Plaintiff Couples Amendment One and North Carolina’s marriage laws not only infringe on the First Amendment freedoms of religious liberty and expressive association of the UCC and assorted faith leaders and their congregants described above, but they also violate the constitutional rights of the six pairs of committed Plaintiff Couples. Elizabeth “Lisa” Cloninger and Kathleen Smith live together in Charlotte. Cloninger Decl. ¶ 1; Smith Decl. ¶ 1. They are in a committed, loving and stable relationship and want their pastor, Reverend Nancy Allison of Holy Covenant United Church of Christ, to officiate their wedding in North Carolina. Cloninger Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7; Smith Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6. Lisa and Kathleen are both very involved at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ, and as practicing Christians they believe strongly in the importance of marriage and declaring their relationship in front of their church, family, friends, and in the eyes of God. Cloninger Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8; Smith
13 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 20 of 47

Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7. Amendment One and North Carolina’s marriage laws not only infringe Lisa and Kathleen’s right to practice their faith, but they also discriminate against them based on who they love and wish to marry, which violates their equal protection and due process rights. On April 17, 2014, Lisa and Kathleen went to the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds and applied for a marriage license. They were denied. Cloninger Decl. ¶ 14; Smith Decl. ¶ 13.
Kay Diane Ansley and Catherine “Cathy” McGaughey live together in Old Fort, North Carolina and worship at First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville. Revered Joseph Hoffman is their pastor. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 10; Ansley Decl. ¶ 9; McGaughey Decl. ¶ 9. Diane and Cathy have been in a committed, loving, and stable relationship since 1999 and want to marry in the same church building where Cathy’s parents were married and where her mother was baptized. Ansley Decl. ¶¶ 7, 16; McGaughey Decl. ¶¶ 7, 16. On April 24, 2014, Diane and Cathy went to the McDowell County Register of Deeds and applied for a marriage license. They were denied. Ansley Decl. ¶ 17; McGaughey Decl. ¶ 17.
Shauna Bragan and Stacy Maloney live together in Concord, North Carolina. Bragan Decl. ¶¶ 1-2; Maloney Decl. ¶¶ 1-2. Stacy is a member of Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ and Shauna, while not member, faithfully attends. Bragan Decl. ¶ 2; Maloney Decl. ¶ 2. Revered Nathan King is their senior pastor. King Decl. ¶ 12; Bragan Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Maloney Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Shauna and Stacy are in a committed, loving and stable relationship and want their pastor to officiate their wedding in North Carolina. Bragan Decl. ¶ 7; Maloney Decl. ¶ 7. On April 24, 2014, Shauna and Stacy went to the Cabarrus County Register of Deeds and applied for a marriage license. They were denied. Bragan Decl. ¶ 15; Maloney Decl. ¶ 15.
Cathy Fry and Joanne Marinaro live together in Huntersville, North Carolina and worship at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Charlotte. Fry Decl. ¶¶ 1, 6; Marinaro Decl. ¶¶ 1, 6.
14 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 21 of 47

The Reverend Nancy Kraft is their pastor. Kraft Decl. ¶ 14; Fry Decl. ¶ 7; Marinaro Decl. ¶ 7. Cathy and Joanne are in a committed, loving and stable relationship and want their pastor to officiate their wedding in North Carolina. Fry Decl. ¶ 7; Marinaro Decl. ¶ 7. On April 23, 2014, Cathy and Joanne went to the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds and applied for a marriage license. They were denied. Fry Decl. ¶ 13; Marinaro Decl. ¶ 13.
Joel Blady and Jeffrey Addy live together in Charlotte, North Carolina. Blady Decl. ¶ 1; Addy Decl. ¶ 1. Joel is a member of Temple Beth El, and Jeffrey, while not a member, faithfully attends. Blady Decl. ¶ 4; Addy Decl. ¶ 4. Joel and Jeffrey are in a committed, loving and stable relationship and want Rabbi Freirich to be able to officiate their wedding in North Carolina. Blady Decl. ¶ 6; Addy Decl. ¶ 6; Freirich Decl. ¶ 9.
Betty Mack and Carol Taylor have been in a committed relationship for over 41 years. Mack Decl. ¶ 4; Taylor Decl. ¶ 4. Both in their 70s, Betty and Carol want Reverend Ward to be able to officiate their wedding in North Carolina. Mack Decl. ¶ 6; Taylor Decl. ¶ 6. As Carol describes their connection with their church and faith community: “It is in this place, with these people, with this faith leader, that I would consecrate the most important relationship of my life.” Taylor Decl. ¶ 9. On April 25, 2014, Betty and Carol went to the Buncombe County Register of Deeds and applied for a marriage license, but the Register of Deeds would not issue them a license. Mark Decl. ¶ 11; Taylor Decl. ¶ 11.
The Plaintiff Couples all face economic, familial, emotional, and legal harms from being denied the equal protection and due process rights to marry in North Carolina. For example, during Betty Mack and Carol Taylor’s 41 year relationship, Carol has usually been employed by a large institution that covered her health insurance. Taylor Decl. ¶ 8. In contrast, Betty has been either employed by a small company that did not offer insurance or was self-employed. Id.
15 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 22 of 47

Unlike Carol’s colleagues whose marriages were recognized by the State, Betty could not join her insurance during those years. Id. As Carol explains, “[Betty] had to buy expensive individual insurance, creating a financial burden on our family.” Id; see also, e.g., Addy Decl. ¶ 5, Blady Decl ¶ 8 (difficulty of estate planning); Cloninger Decl. ¶ 12, Smith Decl. ¶ 11 (cost of health insurance); McGaughey Decl. ¶ 13, Ansley Decl. ¶ 13 (inability to file taxes jointly); Fry Decl. ¶ 12, Marinaro ¶ 12 (stigma); Bragan ¶ 11, Maloney ¶ 11 (complicates child care).
3. DEFENDANTS Defendant Roy Cooper is the Attorney General of North Carolina. As Attorney
General, Defendant Cooper is obligated to appear on behalf of the state in any court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the state may be a party or interested. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 114-2. It is the duty of Defendant Cooper to defend and enforce the laws of North Carolina. In addition, as Attorney General, Defendant Cooper has advised that “a register of deeds would violate North Carolina law in issuing a marriage license to persons of the same gender. If, in issuing such a license, the register of deeds operates in bad faith he may subject himself to [certain civil and criminal] penalties . . . .” Re: Advisory Opinion: Issuance of Marriage Licenses to Individuals of Same Gender; Penalties, N.C. Op. Att’y Gen., 2004 WL 871437, at *2 (Mar. 29, 2004). Defendant Cooper and his successors are sued in their official capacity only.
Defendants Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds for Buncombe County; Wayne Nixon, Register of Deeds for Cabarrus County; Tonia Hampton, Register of Deeds for McDowell County; J. David Granberry, Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg County; and Laura M. Riddick, Register of Deeds for Wake County are each entrusted with the authority to carry out
16 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 23 of 47

certain laws of the state, including issuing marriage licenses. Defendants Reisinger, Nixon, Hampton, Granberry, Riddick, and their successors, are sued in their official capacity only.
Defendants Ronald L. Moore, Buncombe County District Attorney; Roxann Vaneekhoven, Cabarrus County District Attorney; Bradley Greenway, McDowell County District Attorney; Andrew Murray, Mecklenburg County District Attorney; and Ned Mangum, Wake County District Attorney are the elected representatives of the state in all criminal matters within those respective counties, with the primary responsibility to prosecute all criminal cases filed in the Superior and District Courts, as well as to advise local enforcement.
Defendants’ actions constitute actions under color of law and all Defendants have “some connection with the enforcement of the marriage statutes.” Thigpen v. Cooper, 739 S.E. 2d 165, 172 (N.C. App. 2013).
4. QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Are Plaintiffs likely to prevail on their claims that the North Carolina laws banning same-sex marriage violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments? (2) Will Plaintiffs suffer irreparable injury without preliminary injunctive relief? (3) Do Plaintiffs’ injuries outweigh any injury to Defendants that would result from the preliminary injunction? (4) Is the preliminary injunction in the public interest?
5. ARGUMENT
To prevail, a “plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); WV Ass’n of Club Owners
17 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 24 of 47

v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009); Houey v. Carolina First Bank, 890 F. Supp. 2d 611, 620 (W.D.N.C. 2012). Plaintiffs meet each of these requirements.
I. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on the Merits A. North Carolina’s Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause No less than laws that state how, when, and where people may pray, the Marriage Laws
violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because they threaten to proscribe religious practices. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. I. The Free Exercise Clause applies to the states by incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940).
A unanimous Supreme Court has affirmed recently the foundational importance of the freedom of churches to make religious decisions. Under the Free Exercise Clause, the government may not “interfere[ ] with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C., 132 S.Ct. 694, 707 (2012) (citing Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990)). By threatening clergy who perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, the Marriage Laws infringe upon a “religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission.” Hosanna-Tabor, 132 S.Ct. at 706.
In Hosanna-Tabor, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly recognized the critical role that clergy play in shaping religious beliefs, emphasizing that “[t]he members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers.” Id. at 706. Thus, Hosanna-Tabor held that a “ministerial exception” prevented application of employment discrimination laws to those hired for religious purposes, lest the government intrude on the church’s authority to control who
18 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 25 of 47

should perform religious roles and functions, and under what circumstances. Id.; see also Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 306 (3d Cir. 2006) (Free Exercise Clause protects “a religious institution’s right to decide matters of faith, doctrine, and church governance”).
The reasoning of Hosanna-Tabor applies with the same force here. Threatening clergy with criminal sanctions and civil liability for solemnizing same-sex marriages -- for blessing human relationships before God and the faith community that shares certain beliefs about the importance of that ceremony in their common life -- interferes with “the faith and mission of the church itself.” Hosanna-Tabor, 132 S.Ct. at 707. The Clergy Plaintiffs have explained the critical importance of solemnizing marriages to religious belief and practice:
The nuclear family is a bedrock of civilization. Assisting couples to receive the official sanction of their faith communities helps promote healthy communal structures, stable families, a welcoming and inclusive religious community, and faith in God. . . .Without the ability to exercise my responsibility to assist in marrying all those in our congregations, the State has hindered my ability to fulfill my role as a rabbi. Freirich Decl. ¶ 8; see also Allison Decl. ¶ 13 (when a minister solemnizes same-sex relationships in the eyes of God, they welcome new families into their religions and thereby “form a faith community of [their] choosing consistent with the principles of [their] faith”). Like the limits the Free Exercise Clause places on the reach of employment discrimination laws when a church selects employees for religious roles, the State cannot restrict the internal decisions of a religious body as to what unions are worthy of blessing before God and inclusion and celebration in that religious community. That is a decision for that faith community and its clergy to make without threat or interference from the government. There is a corollary line of cases that further supports the free exercise claim. It holds that the core purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to prevent the government from regulating religious beliefs or taking sides in religious controversies. See Employment Div., Dep’t of
19 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 26 of 47

Human Res. of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). Accordingly, a law is not neutral if one “object or purpose . . . is the suppression of religion or religious conduct.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993). The Marriage Laws are not “neutral” because of their impact on religious practice. Since 1996, in response to the emerging prospect of marriage equality in North Carolina, the Legislature has placed such unions into a statutory regime in which clergy are prohibited from performing marriage ceremonies. “There are, of course, many ways of demonstrating that the object or purpose of a law is the suppression of religion or religious conduct,” id. at 533, including the “real operation” of the challenged laws in relation to any “legitimate concern[s] of government . . . apart from discrimination.” Id. at 535. Recent federal court decisions have consistently held that there is no legitimate justification for such bans and that they are rooted in discriminatory animus. See United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2694 (2013) (noting that the Constitution protects the “moral and sexual choices” of same-sex couples); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 582-83 (2003); see also, e.g., Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013), appeal docketed, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2013).
The Marriage Laws prohibit clergy qua clergy from performing a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. See N.C. Gen. Stat § 51-7. On their face, the laws regulate religious practice, telling clergy what relationships they may and may not “solemnize” -- consecrate, sanctify and bless. Id. Such threatened sanction of a clergy’s decision to sanctify a committed relationship between two consenting adult congregants is tantamount to “governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 877 (quoting Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963)); see also Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202, 209 (3d Cir. 2004) (“The Free Exercise Clause forbids any regulation of beliefs as such.”) (Alito, J.). As the
20 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 27 of 47

Supreme Court has recognized, “many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance . . . therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987); see also Fredric J. Bold, Jr., Comment, Vows to Collide: The Burgeoning Conflict Between Religious Institutions and Same-Sex Marriage Antidiscrimination Laws, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 179, 185 (2009) (“Americans have historically conceived of marriage in both law and society as a sacred, religious, and pre-political institution that is the foundation of society”); Douglas Laycock, Afterword, in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty 189, 202-03 (Douglas Laycock et al. eds., 2008) (“Marriage is a religious institution and a religious relationship.”). Through marriage rites, congregations, clergy and individuals wish to affirm their belief in “the importance of marriage and declar[e] [their] relationship in front of [their] church, family, friends, and in the eyes of God.” See Fry Decl. ¶ 11; Marinaro Decl. ¶ 11. Such declarations, affirmations and blessings are precisely the expression of beliefs that are at the core of the First Amendment’s protection. Accordingly, “[t]he government may not . . . punish the expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false” or “lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 877 (citations omitted).
The clerical declaration and blessing of relationships in front of a church, family, friends, and in the eyes of God is an act of faith into which the government may not intrude, absent a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means. As explained elsewhere in this brief, North Carolina cannot advance any rational basis for this intrusion whatsoever, let alone a compelling interest. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that the Marriage Laws violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
21 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 28 of 47

B. North Carolina’s Ban on Religious Marriage Ceremonies Violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights to Expressive Association
The Marriage Laws violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights in another important way—the Laws violate the right of expressive association. The First Amendment freedom of association includes the right to expressive association, meaning the “right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.” Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138, 146 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984)). Emphasizing the importance of the right to expressive association, the Supreme Court observed that it is “crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas.” Dale, 530 U.S. at 648.
The debate over Amendment One was rife with evidence of such imposition of majority views on those who express different religious beliefs. North Carolina State Senator James Forrester, a sponsor of Amendment One, explained his rationale for the law: “We need to reach out to them and get them to change their lifestyle back to the one we accept”; “[The City of Asheville, North Carolina is] a cesspool of sin.”8 And his view was decidedly religious. He stated, “The Lord intended for a family to have one man and one woman.”9 Another State Senator, Wesley Meredith, declared that “the Bible provides the basis that marriage should be limited to a relationship between a man and a woman.”10
8 Rob Schofield, Anti-gay lawmakers speak their (very troubled) minds, The Progressive Pulse (Sept. 9, 2011), http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2011/09/09/anti-gay-lawmakers-speak-their-very-troubled-minds. 9 State Senator James Forrester, Sponsor of Amendment One, Wedding Bills, The News and Observer (Mar. 2, 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/02/1022741/wedding-bills.html. 10 Paul Woolverton, N.C. Senate Approves Amendment to Block Gay Marriage, Fay Observer (Sept. 14, 2011), http://www.fayobserver.com/news/state/article_df7d48cf-1770-5f59-9975-11bc83b05347.html.
22 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 29 of 47

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the First Amendment right to expressive association when it comes to religious beliefs. “An individual’s freedom to speak, to worship . . . could not be vigorously protected from interference by the State unless a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends were not also guaranteed.” Roberts, 468 U.S.at 622. This right to expressive association is particularly important when “dissident expression” faces “suppression by the majority.” Id. “Government actions that may unconstitutionally infringe upon this freedom can take a number of forms. Among other things, government may not . . . interfere with the internal organization or affairs of the group . . . .” Id. at 623. Such interference may only “be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.” Id.
The Court later refined this analytical framework in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), where it struck down a state law requiring the Boy Scouts to accept gay scout leaders. Under Dale, courts analyze the following three factors to determine if a law violates the First Amendment right to expressive association: (1) “whether the group engages in ‘expressive association,’” id. at 648; (2) whether the challenged law “significantly affect[s] [a group’s] ability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” id. at 650; and (3) whether “the associational interest in freedom of expression” outweighs the State’s interest in the regulation, id. Applying this framework here, the Marriage Laws are unconstitutional.
First, Plaintiffs engage in expressive association. In Dale, the Supreme Court recognized that the Boy Scouts sought to transmit a system of “values—both expressly and by example” and that it was “indisputable that an association that seeks to transmit such a system of values engages in expressive activity.” Id. at 650. The desire to “transmit . . . [a] system of values,”
23 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 30 of 47

both “expressly and by example,” defines the religious beliefs and practices at issue here. For example, the UCC is a church of “extravagant welcome” and marries same-sex couples and includes same-sex couples and their families in the life of the church in the same manner as opposite-sex couples and their families. General Synod Decl. ¶¶ 5, 10. As such, the UCC intentionally expresses and transmits a system of values including the value of treating all of God’s children alike. Id. ¶ 9.
Thus, under Dale, there can be no serious question that Plaintiffs’ respective religious organizations are equally engaged in expressing a “system of values,” and are also protected. See also Hosanna-Tabor, 132 S. Ct. at 706 (noting that while “freedom of association is a right enjoyed by religious and secular groups alike,” the First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations”).
Second, under Dale, deputizing clergy to perform opposite-sex marriages while threatening sanctions for solemnizing same-sex unions “significantly affect[s]” Plaintiffs’ ability to express their views. 530 U.S. at 650. The religious ceremony “is a public affirmation of the marriage in the context of their church and faith. This expression of faith and public affirmation of love, in the strong view of the UCC, has the identical religious significance whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex.” General Synod Decl. ¶ 11. Prohibiting clergy from performing such ceremonies “significantly affects” the ability of both the Clergy Plaintiffs and the Couple Plaintiffs to express their core values. See, e.g., Blady Decl. ¶ 6; Tanner Decl. ¶ 7.
Indeed, there is little distinction between forced exclusion versus forced inclusion: Prohibiting religious organizations from performing religious same-sex marriage ceremonies forces them to perform only opposite-sex marriages, projecting the view that only those are legitimate. See Dale, 530 U.S. at 654 (state law forcing Boy Scouts to accept a gay individual
24 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 31 of 47

“as an assistant scoutmaster would just as surely interfere with the Boy Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs”); see also Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 572-73 (1995) (citing Roberts and holding that organizers may exclude gay rights organization from St. Patrick’s Day parade because state “may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees”).
Third, there is no compelling state justification for the burden the Marriage Laws place on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Dale, 530 U.S. at 658-59; Roberts, 468 U.S. at 623. As explained more fully below, there is no legitimate governmental justification for the Marriage Laws -- whether they were enacted to espouse some purported societal benefit (e.g., so-called responsible procreation, “optimal” child rearing, or a notion of the “tradition” of marriage), or out of animus against same-sex couples (which is impermissible under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses), or to advance a particular group’s religious views (which is impermissible under the First Amendment). See United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2694 (2013) (noting that the Constitution protects the “moral and sexual choices” of same-sex couples); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 582-83 (2003); see also Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013). Thus, although heightened scrutiny should apply to the Marriage Laws, it is clear that the Laws do not even withstand review under the rational basis test.
The Supreme Court was careful to preserve the freedom of religious association even as it rejected a Free Exercise challenge in Smith: “[I]t is easy to envision a case in which a challenge on freedom of association grounds would . . . be reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns.” 494 U.S. at 882 (citing Roberts, 468 U.S. at 622). The scope and meaning of such “hybrid rights” has been heavily debated, but the Supreme Court’s example was no artificial
25 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 32 of 47

combination of unrelated rights. The Court simply recognized in Smith that two closely related rights genuinely “reinforce” each other. The right to determine who may be married in a religious ceremony lies at the intersection of the Free Exercise Clause and the freedom of association.
C. North Carolina’s Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declares that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Due process encompasses “matters of substantive law as well as matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal constitution from invasion by the States.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846-47 (1992) (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (Brandeis J., concurring)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987) (“The decision to marry is a fundamental right”); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978) (“[D]ecisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”). The Due Process Clause protects the right to marry because it “has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); see also M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996) (citing Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376 (1971)) (noting that choices about marriage, family life, and children upbringing are among the association rights the Court considers sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) (noting that marriage involves “a right of
26 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 33 of 47

privacy older than the Bill of Rights” and is a “coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred”).
In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that same-sex couples have the same protected liberty and privacy interests in their relationships as opposite-sex couples. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court struck down a Texas statute criminalizing acts of sodomy conducted between consenting homosexual adults in their own homes. 539 U.S. 558 (2003). The Court explained that “our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” Id. at 574. The Court held that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Id.
The Court applied similar reasoning in its recent decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013). Windsor struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)—defining marriage as between one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law—as violative of “basic due process and equal protection principles.” Id. at 2693. The Court explained that DOMA’s restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples constituted “interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages.” Id. The Court continued:
DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places samesex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472 . . . .” Id. at 2694. In light of the Supreme Court’s longstanding holding that marriage is a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause and its more recent holding that a federal law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the “equal dignity of same-sex marriages,” id. at 2693, it is clear
27 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 34 of 47

that same-sex marriage is included in the fundamental right to marriage. State laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples thus impermissibly infringe upon the due process rights of same-sex individuals to marry the partner of their choosing. See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 620 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution undoubtedly imposes constraints on the State’s power to control the selection of one’s spouse . . . .”).
Indeed, since the Windsor decision, three federal district courts have held that the Due Process Clause protects the right of same-sex couples to marry. See De Leon v. Perry, No. SA13-CA-00982-OLG, 2014 WL 715741, at *20 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014) (“By denying Plaintiffs . . . the fundamental right to marry, Texas denies their relationship the same status and dignity afforded to citizens who are permitted to marry. It also denies them the legal, social, and financial benefits of marriage that opposite-sex couples enjoy.”); Bostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13CV395, 2014 WL 561978, at *12 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014) (“These laws limit the fundamental right to marry to only those Virginia citizens willing to choose a member of the opposite gender for a spouse. These laws interject profound government interference into one of the most personal choices a person makes. Such interference compels careful judicial examination . . . .”); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013) (“Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry that protects their choice of a same-sex partner.”); cf. Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968, 978 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (“The right to remain married is therefore properly recognized as one that is a fundamental liberty interest appropriately protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Here, Ohio’s marriage recognition bans violate this fundamental right. . . .”) (emphasis in original). Since Windsor, no court has held otherwise, and this Court should not either.
28 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 35 of 47

Because the Marriage Laws infringe upon the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry, those laws are subject to strict scrutiny by this Court and can only be upheld if they are “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 US 292, 302 (1993)). As explained below, Defendants cannot satisfy their burden of proving that the Marriage Laws satisfy rational basis review, let alone strict scrutiny. For these reasons, the Plaintiff Couples are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that North Carolina’s marriage laws violate the Due Process Clause.
D. North Carolina’s Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)).
In recent months, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor, six federal district courts, including one in the Fourth Circuit, have found that the laws of six different states prohibiting same-sex marriage that are virtually identical to the North Carolina marriage laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.11 No court since Windsor has found that the prohibition against same-sex marriage can withstand Equal Protection scrutiny,
11 Those states are Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Utah. See DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12–CV– 10285, 2014 WL 1100794 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, No. SA–13–CV–00982–OLG, 2014 WL 715741 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2014); Bostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13cv395, 2014 WL 561978 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-1169 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014); Bourke v. Beshear, No. 3:13–CV–750–H, 2014 WL 556729 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-5291 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-5006 (10th Cir. Jan. 27, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013), appeal docketed, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2013).
29 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 36 of 47

even under rational basis review. As with DOMA, by refusing to permit same-sex couples to
marry and criminalizing acts of clergy that would solemnize such marriages, the Marriage Laws
single out a “subset” of relationships and deny same-sex couples the equal rights,
responsibilities, and benefits that opposite-sex couples receive, thereby “demean[ing] the couple,
whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.” Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694 (citing
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 588 (2003)).
Because the Marriage Laws classify citizens on the basis of sexual orientation, this Court should apply strict scrutiny in considering whether they violate constitutional rights.12 The
Supreme Court consistently has applied heightened scrutiny to laws that discriminate against a
group that has experienced a “history of purposeful unequal treatment or ha[s] been subjected to
unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their
abilities.” Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313 (1976) (per curiam) (quotations
omitted); see also United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531 (1996) (noting “long and
unfortunate history of sex discrimination”). There can be no serious debate that gays and
lesbians, the targets of the Marriage Laws, have experienced a “history of purposeful unequal
treatment.” The Supreme Court itself has noted this fact, see Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 571 (“for
centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral”), and
federal courts consistently have recognized that “[g]ays and lesbians have been victims of a long
12 Although the Fourth Circuit has held in older cases that discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to rational basis review, see Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 731–32 (4th Cir. 2002); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 928 (4th Cir. 1996), those decisions were premised on the absence of constitutional protection for same-sex intimate conduct -- a premise that the Supreme Court now has now rejected. MacDonald v. Moose, 710 F.3d 154, 163 (4th Cir. 2013) (“In Lawrence, the Supreme Court plainly held that statutes criminalizing private acts of consensual sodomy between adults are inconsistent with the protections of liberty assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”) (citing Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578). This Court accordingly is free to reexamine whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to heightened scrutiny. See Faust v. S.C. State Highway Dep’t, 721 F.2d 934, 936 (4th Cir. 1983) (decisions that have been “sufficiently undermined by subsequent Supreme Court decisions . . . should no longer be followed”).
30 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 37 of 47

history of discrimination,” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 981 (N.D. Cal. 2010). See also Veney, 293 F.3d at 733-34 (“[W]e cannot ignore the fact that homosexuals are subject to bias-motivated attacks from heterosexuals.”).
Heightened scrutiny also applies because the Marriage Laws are premised on sex or gender-based classifications. It is well established that classifications based on sex can be sustained only where the government demonstrates that they are “substantially related” to an “important governmental objective.” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533 (quotations omitted); Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2012) (“Genderbased classifications invoke intermediate scrutiny and must be substantially related to achieving an important governmental objective.”). The Marriage Laws classify citizens based on their sex because, for example, Plaintiffs Blady and Addy would be able to marry each other in North Carolina if one of them were female, and Plaintiffs Fry and Marinaro would be able to marry each other if one of them were male. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits such “differential treatment or denial of opportunity” based on a person’s sex in the absence of an “exceedingly persuasive” justification. Virginia, 518 U.S. at 532–33 (quotations omitted).
E. The Marriage Laws Cannot Withstand Rational Basis Review; The Laws Therefore Fail Under Any Form Of Heightened Scrutiny
Although strict or at least intermediate scrutiny should apply, it is clear that North Carolina’s prohibition against same-sex marriage lacks even a “rational relation to some legitimate end.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996). For this reason, the Marriage Laws necessarily fail under any form of heightened scrutiny as well.
In order to survive rational basis review, the law at issue “must find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 321 (1993). The Court must also “ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging
31 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 38 of 47

the group burdened by the law.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. Further, laws “born of animosity
toward the class of persons affected” are invalid under rational basis review. Id. at 634.
Here, Defendants cannot identify any rational basis for excluding gay and lesbian
individuals from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Proponents of similar laws
banning same-sex marriage have sought and failed to justify such restrictions under theories that
the laws promote an “optimal” childrearing environment or family unit; encourage procreation;
rely on the “traditional” definition of marriage; or reflect the state’s right to protect “traditional”
morality (i.e., moral condemnation of gays and lesbians).
None of these purported justifications can withstand even rational basis review. Indeed,
these justifications (and others) have been rejected by each court that has recently considered them.13 In summary, the justifications fail as follows:
• Any asserted interest in creating an “optimal” child-rearing environment fails
because there is no reason to believe (and no evidence to suggest) that prohibiting
gays and lesbians from marrying will increase the number of children raised in so-
called “optimal” conditions. Indeed, in DeBoer, the court concluded after trial
and testimony from numerous experts on both sides of the debate that “the
evidence adduced at trial disproved th[e] premise” that “heterosexual married
13 See DeBoer, 2014 WL 1100794, at *12-16 (rejecting optimal childrearing environment, proceeding with caution into new definitions of marriage, tradition and morality, and the state’s interest in defining marriage); De Leon, 2014 WL 715741, at *14-17 (rejecting responsible procreation and childrearing, and preserving traditional marriage); Bostic, 2014 WL 561978, at *22 (rejecting protecting tradition, responsible procreation, and protecting state’s role in domestic laws); Bourke, 2014 WL 556729, at *7-8 (rejecting “state’s institution of traditional marriage,” responsible procreation and childrearing, steering naturally procreative relationships into stable unions, promoting the optimal childrearing environment, and proceeding with caution when considering changes in how the state defines marriage); Bishop, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 1288-96 (rejecting responsible procreation and childrearing, steering naturally procreative relationships into stable unions, promoting the ideal family unit, and avoiding changes to the institution of marriage and unintended consequences); Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1211-15 (rejecting responsible procreation, optimal childrearing, proceeding with caution); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 993-94 (rejecting optimal childrearing).
32 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 39 of 47

couples provide the optimal environment for raising children.” 2014 WL 1100794, at *12. The availability of marriage to gay men and lesbians has no effect on the ability of heterosexual couples to have and raise children. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage bans do great damage to the many thousands of children being raised by gay men and lesbians, including, for example, Shauna Bragan’s two children. Maloney Decl. ¶ 2; Bragan Decl. ¶ 2. As even the Supreme Court has noted, laws precluding marriage between same-sex couples “bring financial harm to children of same-sex couples” by “rais[ing] the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to the workers’ same-sex spouses.” Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2695. Laws like North Carolina’s that ban same-sex marriage “humiliate[]” children raised by gay and lesbian couples, making it “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.” Id. at 2694. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would benefit -- not harm -- children in North Carolina. See Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 963 (“The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children.”). • There also is no rational basis to assert that banning same-sex marriages promotes procreation within a marriage. Whether same-sex couples are permitted to marry has no relationship to or impact on heterosexual couples wishing to marry, or the procreation of those heterosexual couples. In short, “it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married
33 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 40 of 47

opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts.” Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d, at 1211. • To the extent North Carolina argues that the Marriage Laws can be justified based on a desire to maintain “traditional” definitions of marriage, they are wrong as a matter of law and fact. As a legal matter, “tradition” is not a sufficient basis to justify a discriminatory law. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577-78 (“[N]either history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attacks”); Nev. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 733-35 (2003) (state discriminatory action based on stereotypes or historical roles was unconstitutional). As a factual matter, there is a strong “tradition” of recognizing the sanctity of same-sex marriages, as the declarations concurrently submitted herewith demonstrate. See, e.g., General Synod Decl. ¶ 9; King Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. • The Supreme Court also has made clear that “[m]oral disapproval” of gay men and lesbians, “like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy” even rational basis review. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582. The “law cannot, directly or indirectly, give [private biases] effect” at the expense of a disfavored group’s fundamental constitutional rights. Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984); see also Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577 (“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.”) (citation omitted) (quotations omitted). In examining DOMA, the Supreme Court found that “interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages” was the “essence” of the law -- and that the law was unconstitutional for
34 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 41 of 47

that reason. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693. As the Court explained, “the avowed purpose and practical effect of the law” was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” upon gay and lesbian relationships, relegating them to an inferior status. Id. “The stated purpose of the law was to promote an interest in protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws.” Id.; see also Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 601 (“‘[P]reserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original).
North Carolina’s Marriage Laws suffer from the same failings as DOMA and must suffer the same fate. These laws were enacted to “deprive some couples . . . , but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities,” thereby “writ[ing] inequality” into the North Carolina Constitution and statutory code. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694. Under any level of review, they violate the Fourteenth Amendment and should be struck down.
II. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Injury Without Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs are severely and irreparably injured by the challenged state laws, which violate the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes per se irreparable harm. See, e.g., Legend Night Club v. Miller, 637 F.3d 291, 302 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding violation of First Amendment constituted per se irreparable injury) (quoting El-rod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)); Johnson v. Bergland, 586 F.2d 993, 995 (4th Cir. 1978). Where, as here, movants establish that they are being denied a constitutional right, preliminary injunctive relief must be granted. See Henry v. Greenville Airport Comm’n, 284 F.2d 631, 633 (4th Cir. 1960) (per curiam) (holding that an injunction must be granted where “a person . . . establishes by undisputed evidence that he is being denied a constitutional right.”).
35 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 42 of 47

The severe and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs if a preliminary injunction is not entered is well documented. Among other things, same-sex couples who wish to marry, but who are barred from doing so by the Marriage Laws, are denied important financial benefits that are automatically conferred on married couples including the ability to automatically inherit a partner’s estate. See, e.g., Taylor Decl. ¶ 7. Same-sex couples must instead hire lawyers to draft a will to achieve what the law automatically bestows on opposite-sex couples who are allowed to marry. Id. As a result of their status, same-sex couples also suffer financial penalties that do not apply to opposite-sex couples who are entitled to marry. For example, married couples may deduct the cost of including a spouse on an employer sponsored health insurance plan; same-sex couples are not entitled to this benefit. See, e.g., Cloninger Decl. ¶ 12. Same-sex couples also are “unable to take advantage of the spousal exception on inheritance and must pay an inheritance tax on jointly-owned property.” Fry Decl. ¶ 8. Apart from these financial costs, the Marriage Laws stigmatize and demean the relationships and religious beliefs of same-sex couples who wish to marry; they are made to feel like “second-class citizens.” Ansley Decl. ¶ 15; McGaughey Decl. ¶ 15; Smith Decl. ¶ 12; Bragan Decl. ¶ 13; Maloney Decl. ¶ 13; Marinaro Decl. ¶ 12; Blady Decl. ¶ 11; Addy Decl. ¶ 10; Cloninger Decl. ¶ 13; Fry Decl. ¶ 12; Taylor Decl. ¶ 10; Mack Decl. ¶ 10. Critically, the Marriage Laws also compromise the ability of same-sex couples to care for their children in the event of an emergency because they effectively bar a putative spouse from becoming recognized as a legal parent. See, e.g., Fry Decl. ¶ 9.
Clergy Plaintiffs face similar harms arising from the Marriage Laws. For example, Reverend Allison “fear[s] that performing religious rites that solemnize the union of same-sex couples violates the law and exposes [her] to criminal prosecution and financial judgments.”
36 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 43 of 47

Allison Decl. ¶ 11. As a result, the Marriage Laws have a “chilling effect,” preventing her from “solemnizing same-sex marriages on an equal basis with opposite-sex marriages.”14 Id.; see also Hoffman Decl. ¶ 10; King Decl. ¶ 11; Kraft Decl. ¶ 9; Freirich Decl. ¶ 9; Tanner Decl. ¶ 9; Ward ¶ 14; Petty Decl. ¶ 9.
F. The Balance of the Equities Favors Plaintiffs.
Defendants cannot seriously claim that a preliminary injunction would cause harm to them or to the State of North Carolina. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has found that “a state is in no way harmed by issuance of a preliminary injunction which prevents the state from enforcing restrictions likely to be found unconstitutional. If anything, the system is improved by such an injunction.” Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cnty., 722 F.3d 184, 191 (4th Cir. 2013).
The State already has in place the necessary infrastructure to grant marriage licenses and effect any other administrative requirements already in place for opposite-sex couples. The balance of harms favors Plaintiffs because, without an injunction, they will not only be deprived of their constitutional rights, but same-sex couples will be deprived of the many benefits and rights afforded to married couples. These include the basic, fundamental rights of exercise of religion, freedom of association, due process, and equal protection, as well as more specific benefits and rights attendant to marriage, including health insurance benefits, childcare benefits, and favorable treatment on income and estate taxes prescribed by state law as well as the basic respect and dignity afforded to legally married couples. Individual Plaintiffs also cannot
14 While none of the Clergy Plaintiffs have been prosecuted for previously performing same sex-marriage ceremonies, the Marriage Laws nevertheless have a chilling effect on their willingness to perform such ceremonies on an equal basis as for opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit has held that even absent prosecution, unless the State “disclaim[s] any intention of exercising [its] enforcement authority,” the injury persists. Mobil Oil v. Attorney General of Com. of VA, 940 F.2d 73, 76 (4th Cir. 1991) (“We see no reason to assume that the [State] legislature enacted this statute without intending it to be enforced.”).
37 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 44 of 47

currently claim benefits under various federal laws that apply only to married couples because they cannot marry under North Carolina law. These Plaintiffs’ injuries will be redressed only if this Court declares these provisions unconstitutional and enjoins Defendants from enforcing them.
G. A Preliminary Injunction Is In The Public Interest The Fourth Circuit has found that “upholding constitutional rights surely serves the public interest.” Centro Tepeyac, 722 F.3d at 191; see also Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albemarle Cnty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249, 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (finding that “upholding constitutional rights serves the public interest”); Saint v. Neb. Sch. Activities Ass’n, 684 F. Supp. 626, 630 (D. Neb. 1988) (finding “the public interest will be served by the granting of the [injunction] as the plaintiff is seeking to prevent violations of [its] constitutional rights”). A preliminary injunction would ensure that the Plaintiff Couples are afforded the same constitutional rights and protections currently shared by opposite-sex couples. Ensuring the constitutional rights of all citizens is surely in the public interest. 6. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
38 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 45 of 47

Dated: April 28, 2014
Jonathan S. Martel David J. Weiner Samuel Witten Sarah E. Warlick Thomas A. Glazer Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 942-5470 Fax: (202) 942-5999 Email: jonathan.martel@aporter.com Pro Hac Vice Applications Pending
Sean Morris Arnold & Porter LLP 777 South Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 243-4222 Email: sean.morris@aporter.com Pro Hac Vice Application Pending
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ S. Luke Largess S. Luke Largess /s/ Jacob H. Sussman Jacob Sussman /s/ John W. Gresham John W. Gresham Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: (704) 338-1220 Fax: (704) 338-1312 Email: llargess@tinfulton.com Email: jsussman@tinfulton.com Email: jgresham@tinfulton.com
Mark Kleinschmidt Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 312 West Franklin Street Chapel Hill NC 27516 Phone: (919) 240-7089 Fax: (919) 240-7822 Email: mkleinschmidt@tinfulton.com

39 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 46 of 47

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Jacob H. Sussman Jacob Sussman Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: (704) 338-1220 Fax: (704) 338-1312 Email: jsussman@tinfulton.com
40 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 47 of 47

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH

GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF )

CHRIST, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Vs.

) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

)

AND ORDER

)

DREW RESINGER, REGISTER OF DEEDS

)

FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

And

)

)))

)

)))

ROY COOPER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

)

))

NORTH CAROLINA,

)

)

Intervenor.

)

THIS MATTER is before the court on its own Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In light of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, ___ S.Ct.___, 2014 WL 4354536 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014), as to which the Mandate has now issued, Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, 14-1169, 14-1173 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2014), the court determines that North Carolina’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law.1

1

The Stay (#91) previously imposed was automatically dissolved on October 6, 2014, when certiorari was

denied in Bostic.

-1-

Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 121 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 3

Specifically, the court finds Article XIV, Section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution, North Carolina General Statute § 51-1 et seq., and any other source of state law that operates to deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the State of North Carolina, prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or threatens clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples with civil or criminal penalties, are, in accordance with Bostic, supra, unconstitutional as they violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Finally, in the hours preceding this Order there have been a number of last minute motions filed by interested parties. The issue before this court is neither a political issue nor a moral issue. It is a legal issue and it is clear as a matter of what is now settled law in the Fourth Circuit that North Carolina laws prohibiting same sex marriage, refusing to recognize same sex marriages originating elsewhere, and/or threating to penalize those who would solemnize such marriages, are unconstitutional.
ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that (1) the consent Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment Claims (#114) is
GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; (2) the court’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, and the court finds
Article XIV, Section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution, North Carolina General Statute § 51-1 et seq., and any other source of state law that operates to deny same-
-2-
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 121 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 3

sex couples the right to marry in the State of North Carolina or prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or threatens clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples with civil or criminal penalties, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as they violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (3) all other pending motions are terminated as MOOT.
PERMANENT INJUNCTION Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing such laws to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender, prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or seek to punish in any way clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples.
With the exception of retaining such jurisdiction as may be necessary to enforce such injunction, this action is otherwise DISMISSED.
The Clerk of Court shall issue a Judgment consistent with this Memorandum of Decision and Order.
Signed: October 10, 2014
-3-
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 121 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 3

 
 General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger

2014 WL 5094093 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina,
Charlotte Division.
GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Drew RESINGER, Register of Deeds for Buncombe County, et al., Defendants,
and Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina,
Intervenor.
No. 3:14–cv–00213–MOC–DLH. | Signed Oct. 10, 2014.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David Weiner, Jonathan Martel, Samuel Witten, Sarah Warlick, Thomas Glazer, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, John West Gresham, S. Luke Largess, Jacob H. Sussman, Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owens, Charlotte, NC, Mark James Kleinschmidt, Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, Chapel Hill, NC, Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Robert Spencer Adden, Jr., Ronald L. Gibson, Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P., Charlotte, NC, Roger A. Askew, Scott Wood Warren, Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya De Brito, N.C. Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
MAX O. COGBURN JR., District Judge.
*1 THIS MATTER is before the court on Thom Tillis’s, North Carolina Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Phil Berger’s, President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, on behalf of themselves, and their members and constituents (hereinafter “proposed intervenor” and/or “General Assembly”) Motion to Intervene (# 107). For the reasons briefly discussed herein, the court will deny such request.

I.
In order to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the proposed intervenors must establish: (1) that their motion was timely; (2) they have an interest relating to the subject matter of the action; (3) a potential for impairment of that interest without intervention; and (4) the identified interest is not adequately represented by the other parties already present in the litigation. Teague v. Bakker, 931 F.2d 259, 260–61 (4th Cir.1991). Each factor will be considered seriatim.
A.
Even though this action has been pending for several months, the court will consider the motion timely as the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.2014), occurred only four days before the proposed intervenors filed their motion. Schaefer v. Bostic, –––S.Ct. ––––, 2014 WL 4354536 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014) (denying certiorari ).
B.
The court next considers what interest the proposed intervenors have in this action. In order to intervene, a proposed intervenor must show that its interest is “significantly protectable.” Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531 (1971). The Supreme Court has also held that “certain public concerns may constitute an adequate ‘interest’ within the meaning of [Rule 24(a)(2) ].” Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68 (1986) (citing Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129, 135 (1967).
In Commack Self–Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Rubin, 170 F.R.D. 93 (E.D.N.Y.1996), the district court considered a motion to intervene filed by the New York Speaker of the House where the constitutionality of a New York law was challenged. In conducting a nearly identical four-step analysis, the Commack court found at step two that the Speaker of the House had a sufficient interest in “upholding the constitutionality of the laws enacted by the State Legislature....” Id. at 101.
1

General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger

Finding that there is some persuasive authority for the proposition that a legislative body and its presiding officers have an interest in litigation that concerns the constitutionality of laws the legislature has passed, the court finds at step two that the proposed intervenors have an interest relating to the subject matter of this litigation.
C.
As to the potential for impairment without the proposed intervention, the interest identified may well be impaired by the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bostic, which is undeniably the law of this circuit and binding on this lower court in light of the denial of certiorari. Considering the phrase “without the proposed intervention,” the potential for impairment is neither heightened nor lowered by the proposed intervenors’ participation or non-participation in light of adequate representation being afforded that interest by North Carolina’s Attorney General, as more fully discussed infra. In an abundance of caution, however, the court will resolve factor three in favor of the proposed intervenors as there exists a real and present potential for impairment.
D.
*2 Finally, the court has considered whether the interest identified by the proposed intervenors is adequately represented by the state defendants who are already parties to this lawsuit. In Commack, supra, after finding that the Speaker of the New York House had an interest in the litigation, the court went on to hold that “ ‘to intervene in a suit in [the] district court in which a state is already a party, ... [the movant] must overcome [the] presumption of adequate representation....’ “ Id. at 104 (quoting United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968, 984–85 (2d Cir.1984); citations omitted).
Here, too, a presumption of adequate representation arises, but is certainly subject to rebuttal by the proposed intervenors. The state defendants include, among others, five of the state’s district attorneys, all of whom are represented by a number of special deputies within the Office of the North Carolina Attorney General. Under North Carolina law, it is the duty of the North Carolina Attorney General to:
defend all actions in the appellate division in which the State shall be

interested, or a party, and to appear for the State in any other court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested.

N.C.Gen.Stat. § 114–2(1).1 Consistent with that provision, the North Carolina Supreme Court has held that “the duties of the Attorney General in North Carolina as prescribed by statutory and common law include the duty to appear for and to defend the State or its agencies in all actions in which the State may be a party or interested.” Martin v. Thornburg, 320 N.C. 533, 546 (1987).

1

The court notes the 2014 amendments to § 114 as

provided in S.L.2014–100, which were approved

August 7, 2014. Review of those amendments does not

disclose any substantive change to § 114–2.

Review of the pleadings in this matter reveals that the interests of the proposed intervenors and the state defendants are identical—to uphold and defend the laws of the State of North Carolina—and that those interests have been adequately represented by the Attorney General throughout this litigation. While the proposed intervenors may well not agree with admissions and concessions made by the state defendants in their Answer (# 104) and subsequent pleadings, those admissions are clearly mandated by prevailing law in light of Bostic and the Attorney General’s obligations under Rule 11(b)(2). Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2).
Albeit in the context of a motion to intervene by a private concern, the adequacy of North Carolina’s defense of the Woman’s Right to Know Act was recently addressed by the Fourth Circuit, which held as follows:
it is among the most elementary functions of a government to serve in a representative capacity on behalf of its people. In matters of public law litigation that may affect great numbers of citizens, it is the government’s basic duty to represent the public interest. And the need for government to exercise its representative function is perhaps at its apex where, as here, a duly enacted statute faces a constitutional challenge. In such cases, the government is simply the most natural party to shoulder the responsibility of defending the
2

General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger

fruits of the democratic process.
*3 Stuart v. Huff, 706 F.3d 345, 351 (4th Cir.2013).
North Carolina law makes it clear that it is the Attorney General who is charged with “shoulder[ing] the responsibility of defending the fruits of the democratic process.” Id. After careful review, the record before this court indicates that the Attorney General has in fact vigorously pursued North Carolina’s defense of the laws challenged in this action, first as a defendant and now as an intervenor himself. While the proposed intervenors certainly believe the Attorney General has abrogated his duty under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 114–2(1), nothing before this court supports such conclusion.
Finally, the court has considered proposed intervenors’ argument that the Attorney General has improperly given up the right to appeal this court’s final decision; however, the court does not read the pleadings that broadly. While the state certainly cannot argue issues on appeal it does not believe have merit, if the state believes this court errs when it enters its judgment in this case, it is welcome and encouraged to file an appeal.

II.
Finally, the court has considered the possibility of permissive joinder. In relevant part, Rule 24(b)(2) provides that the court may “permit a ... state governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party’s claim or defense is based on: (A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency....”2 Clearly, a legislative body promulgates, debates, and passes laws; however, it is not even arguable that the legislature administers or enforces those laws. See N.C. Const. Art. II, § 20 “Powers of the General Assembly” (providing in relevant part that the General Assembly “shall prepare bills to be enacted into laws.”).

2

Part “B” of Rule 24(a)(1) appears to be inapplicable to

the motion now before the court as it deals with

intervention where state or federal regulations, orders,

or agreements are placed at issue.

Finding no basis for permissive intervention and no benefit that can be derived through permissive intervention, the proposed intervenors’ request for permissive intervention will also be denied.

E.
Based on a full consideration of all the factors, the court finds that the proposed intervenors’ interests are, have been, and continue to be adequately represented by the North Carolina Attorney General. Intervention as of right will, therefore, be denied.
	  

ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene (# 107) is DENIED.
	  
	  

3

 
 General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper

2014 WL 3939331 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina,
Charlotte Division.
GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Roy COOPER, et al., Defendants.
No. 3:14cv213. | Signed Aug. 12, 2014.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David Weiner, Arnold & Porter LLP, Jonathan Martel, Samuel Witten, Sarah Warlick, Thomas Glazer, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, John West Gresham, S. Luke Largess, Jacob H. Sussman, Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, Charlotte, NC, Mark James Kleinschmidt, Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, Chapel Hill, NC, Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito, N.C. Department of Justice, Roger A. Askew, Scott Wood Warren Raleigh, NC, Philip Scott Anderson, Long, Parker, Warren & Jones, P.A., Asheville, NC, Tikkun A.S. Gottschalk, Richard Martin Koch, Law Offices of Richard M. Koch, PA, Robert Spencer Adden, Jr., Ronald L. Gibson, Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P., Charlotte, NC, for Defendants.
ORDER
DENNIS L. HOWELL, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 Pending before the Court are the Motions to Stay [# 44, # 47 & # 61] and the Motion for Oral Argument [# 78]. Defendants move to stay this case pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Bostic v. Rainey. Plaintiffs oppose staying this case. Upon a review of the record, the relevant legal authority, and the parties’ briefs, the Court GRANTS the Motions to Stay [# 44, # 47 & # 61 ].
I. Analysis

As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166 (1936). “The determination by a district judge in granting or denying a motion to stay proceedings calls for an exercise of judgment to balance the various factors relevant to the expeditious and comprehensive disposition of the causes of action on the court’s docket.” United States v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir.1977); see also Maryland v. Universal Elections, Inc., 729 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir.2013).
The Court finds that staying this case pending the final resolution of Bostic in the Fourth Circuit is the most efficient means of managing these proceedings, especially in light of the recent decision by the panel, Bostic v. Schaefer, ––– F.3d ––––, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. Jul. 28, 2014). As this Court recently explained in its Order staying a similar case:
Although Bostic concerns the constitutionality of Virginia’s legislated prohibition on same-sex marriage, see Bostic v. Rainey, Civil No. 2:13cv395, 2014 WL 561978 (E.D.Va. Feb. 13, 2014), the analysis of the constitutional issues before the Fourth Circuit will be extremely pertinent, if not dispositive, of some of the issues in this case—namely, whether North Carolina’s marriage laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman are constitutional. The Court finds that it would be a waste of judicial resources, as well as the resources of the State and the Plaintiffs, to move forward in this case prior to a decision in Bostic. Put simply, the outcome in Bostic will in all likelihood shape the outcome of this litigation.
McCrory v. State of North Carolina, No. 1:14CV65, 2014 WL 2048068 (W.D.N.C. May 19, 2014) (Howell, Mag. J.)
Any delay in these proceedings will be minimal since a panel for the Fourth Circuit has already issued an opinion in Bostic. As such, the Court will only stay these
1

General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper

proceedings pending resolution of the case by the Fourth Circuit en banc, if the Fourth Circuit decides to hear this matter en banc, or upon the entry of the formal mandate if the matter is not heard en banc. Such a stay will not be indefinite, and the stay will result in minimal delay and little, if any, prejudice to Plaintiffs. Moreover, the stay will facilitate the more expeditious resolution of this case, as the Court is bound by any decision of the Fourth Circuit. Upon lifting the stay, the District Court can address the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
	  

II. Conclusion *2 The Court GRANTS the Motions to Stay [# 44, # 47 & # 61]. The Court STAYS this case pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit en banc in Bostic v. Rainey or upon the entry of the mandate if the matter is not heard in en banc. Either party may move to lift the stay in this case ten (10) days after the occurrence of these events. Finally, the Court DENIES the Motion for Oral Argument [# 78].
	  
	   	  

2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:14cv213

GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED )

CHURCH OF CHRIST, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROY COOPER, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the Motions to Stay [# 44, # 47 & # 61] and the

Motion for Oral Argument [# 78]. Defendants move to stay this case pending a

ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Bostic v.

Rainey. Plaintiffs oppose staying this case. Upon a review of the record, the

relevant legal authority, and the parties’ briefs, the Court GRANTS the Motions to

Stay [# 44, # 47 & # 61].

I. Analysis

As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “the power to stay

proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,

for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-

-1-

55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 166 (1936). “The determination by a district judge in granting or
denying a motion to stay proceedings calls for an exercise of judgment to balance
the various factors relevant to the expeditious and comprehensive disposition of the
causes of action on the court's docket.” United States v. Georgia Pacific Corp.,
562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1977); see also Maryland v. Universal Elections, Inc.,
729 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 2013).
The Court finds that staying this case pending the final resolution of Bostic
in the Fourth Circuit is the most efficient means of managing these proceedings,
especially in light of the recent decision by the panel, Bostic v. Schaefer, __ F.3d
__, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. Jul. 28, 2014). As this Court recently explained
in its Order staying a similar case:
Although Bostic concerns the constitutionality of Virginia’s legislated prohibition on same-sex marriage, see Bostic v. Rainey, Civil No. 2:13cv395, 2014 WL 561978 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014), the analysis of the constitutional issues before the Fourth Circuit will be extremely pertinent, if not dispositive, of some of the issues in this case – namely, whether North Carolina’s marriage laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman are constitutional. The Court finds that it would be a waste of judicial resources, as well as the resources of the State and the Plaintiffs, to move forward in this case prior to a decision in Bostic. Put simply, the outcome in Bostic will in all likelihood shape the outcome of this litigation.
McCrory v. State of North Carolina, No. 1:14CV65, 2014 WL 2048068 (W.D.N.C.
May 19, 2014) (Howell, Mag. J.)
-2-

Any delay in these proceedings will be minimal since a panel for the Fourth Circuit has already issued an opinion in Bostic. As such, the Court will only stay these proceedings pending resolution of the case by the Fourth Circuit en banc, if the Fourth Circuit decides to hear this matter en banc, or upon the entry of the formal mandate if the matter is not heard en banc. Such a stay will not be indefinite, and the stay will result in minimal delay and little, if any, prejudice to Plaintiffs. Moreover, the stay will facilitate the more expeditious resolution of this case, as the Court is bound by any decision of the Fourth Circuit. Upon lifting the stay, the District Court can address the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
II. Conclusion The Court GRANTS the Motions to Stay [# 44, # 47 & # 61]. The Court STAYS this case pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit en banc in Bostic v. Rainey or upon the entry of the mandate if the matter is not heard in en banc. Either party may move to lift the stay in this case ten (10) days after the occurrence of these events. Finally, the Court DENIES the Motion for Oral Argument [# 78].
Signed: August 12, 2014
-3-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION

)

General Synod of The United Church of Christ; )

Central Conference of American Rabbis;

)

Alliance of Baptists, Inc.; Association of

)

Welcoming & Affirming Baptists; Reverend )

Joseph Hoffman; Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison; )

Reverend Nathan King; Reverend Nancy Kraft; )

Rabbi Jonathan Freirich; Reverend Robin

)

Tanner; Reverend Mark Ward; Reverend Dr. )

Nancy E. Petty; The Very Reverend Todd

)

Donatelli; The Reverend Canon Thomas

)

Murphy; Reverend Milly Morrow; Rabbi Lucy )

H.F. Dinner; Rabbi Ari N. Margolis; Rabbi Ariel )

Edery; Rabbi Eric M. Solomon; Reverend Russ )

Dean; Reverend Amy Jacks Dean; Kay Diane )

Ansley; Catherine “Cathy” McGaughey;

)

Elizabeth “Lisa” Cloninger; Kathleen Smith; )

Shauna Bragan; Stacy Maloney; Cathy Fry; )

Joanne Marinaro; Joel Blady; Jeffrey Addy; )

Betty Mack; and Carol Taylor;

)

Plaintiffs,

) ) Civ. No. 3:14-cv-213

)

v.

)

)

Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North

)

Carolina; Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds for )

Buncombe County; Wayne Nixon, Register of )

Deeds for Cabarrus County; Tonia Hampton, )

Register of Deeds for McDowell County; J. David )

Granberry, Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg )

County; Laura M. Riddick, Register of Deeds for )

Wake County; Ronald L. Moore, Buncombe County District Attorney; Roxann Vaneekhoven, Cabarrus County District Attorney; Bradley Greenway, McDowell County District Attorney; Andrew Murray, Mecklenburg County District Attorney; and Ned Mangum, Wake County

) ) ) ) )

District Attorney;

)

)

Defendants.

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 1 of 36

INTRODUCTION 1. Marriage is a public affirmation of love and respect, and the freedom to marry confers upon individuals “a dignity and status of immense import.” United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2692 (2013). A marriage embodies a mutual exchange of promises to support and care for each other, and it fosters emotional, psychological, physical, financial, and spiritual well-being. In short, as the Supreme Court has noted, marriage is “the most important relation in life.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). 2. When the government denies a group of people the right to marry without a rational reason for doing so, it imposes a severe “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” upon that group. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry and by prohibiting religious denominations even from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, the State of North Carolina stigmatizes same-sex couples, as well as the religious institutions and clergy that believe in equal rights. 3. Plaintiffs thus bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of, collectively, the “Marriage Laws” of the State, including Article XIV, Section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina (so-called, “Amendment One”), North Carolina General Statutes §§ 51-1, 51-1.2, 51-6, 51-7, and all other North Carolina laws that define marriage as exclusively between opposite-sex couples and that preclude—through the imposition of criminal penalties and otherwise— religious ministers, clergy, or anyone else from performing a ceremony of marriage for same-sex couples, thereby preventing couples in those congregations from freely participating in such religious ceremonies. 4. Plaintiffs to this suit fall into three categories:
2 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 2 of 36

a. The first set of plaintiffs consists of four religious organizations—a religious denomination, a conference, an alliance, and an association—whose teachings embrace equal marriage rights for all persons regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender. These groups seek to enjoin and declare unconstitutional all laws that criminalize and prohibit rites that recognize and bless the union of loving couples of the same sex—couples who, if they were of the opposite sex, could have their union recognized and blessed. These groups are referred to as the “Denominational and Religious Organizational Plaintiffs.”
b. The second set of plaintiffs consists of religious ministers and clergy whose faiths teach, and whose congregations affirm, that all loving couples, regardless of sexual orientation and gender, should be permitted to marry in their places of worship and who wish to marry such couples as part of their ministerial calling. These plaintiffs are referred to as the “Clergy Plaintiffs” or “Minister Plaintiffs.” They ask this Court to enjoin and declare unconstitutional all laws that criminalize and prohibit ceremonies or rites that recognize and bless the marriage of loving couples of the same sex.
c. The third set of plaintiffs are same-sex couples—many of whom are members of the Denominational and Religious Organizational Plaintiffs and congregants of the Clergy Plaintiffs—who wish to marry in North Carolina in their homes of worship and under their religious traditions and receive all of the spiritual, psychological, financial, social, and legal benefits the State provides to married heterosexual spouses. They also ask this Court to enjoin and declare unconstitutional all laws that criminalize and prohibit ceremonies or rites that
3 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 3 of 36

recognize and bless the religious marriage of loving couples of the same sex. They further ask the Court to enjoin and declare unconstitutional the Marriage Laws of North Carolina as a denial of equal protection and a violation of substantive due process that implicates their fundamental right to marry. These plaintiffs are referred to as the “Couple Plaintiffs.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This case raises questions under the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and, thus, this Court has jurisdiction over all claims for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all defendants are residents of North Carolina and the majority of defendants reside in or have a substantial presence in the Western District of North Carolina. Venue is also proper in this Court because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district. 7. All actions complained of herein were taken under color of state law, and all Defendants are considered persons, for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, through which Plaintiffs bring these claims.
THE PARTIES The Denominational and Religious Organizational Plaintiffs
8. The United Church of Christ (“UCC”) is a Protestant religious denomination comprised of approximately 1.1 million members worshiping in over 5,100 Local Churches. The UCC was formed in 1957 by the union of the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the General Council of the Congregational Christian Churches of the United States in order to express more fully the oneness in Christ of the churches composing it, to make effective their common witness in Christ, and to serve God’s people in the world. In North Carolina, there are over 24,000 UCC
4 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 4 of 36

members and over 400 clergy authorized or affiliated with the United Church of Christ worshiping at approximately 155 Local Churches. The United Church of Christ is a church of extravagant welcome, proclaiming that no matter who you are and where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here. The United Church of Christ believes in a Still Speaking God, and affirms the responsibility of the church in each generation to make the Christian faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. See General Synod Decl.
9. Plaintiff The General Synod of the United Church of Christ (“General Synod”) is the representative body of the UCC. The General Synod is the gathering of a faith community representative of the wider church to listen for and discern the call of God to the UCC. Delegates from the UCC’s 38 Conferences, regional judicatory bodies, meet at the General Synod every two years to deliberate, discern, and identify the mission of the wider church in God’s world and offer suggestions, invitations, challenges, and assistance in covenant with Local Churches and other settings as they engage in mission together. Id.
10. The UCC has a rich heritage of supporting equal rights for all of God’s people and robust protection of their right freely to exercise their religious beliefs. For more than 30 years, the General Synod of the UCC has adopted resolutions affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) persons; calling for an end to discrimination and for equal protection under the law; deploring LGBT hate crimes and violence; supporting LGBT relationships and families; celebrating the gifts of LGBT persons for ministry; and encouraging all settings of the church to be open and affirming of LGBT persons, welcoming them and encouraging their participation in every aspect of the mission and ministry of the church. Id.
5 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 5 of 36

11. In 1975, the tenth General Synod declared that “as a child of God, every person is endowed with worth and dignity that human judgment cannot set aside. Denial and violation of the civil liberties of the individual and her or his right to equal protection under the law undermines that worth and dignity and is, therefore, morally wrong.” In 1977, the eleventh General Synod urged that U.S. States legislatively recognize that marriage between a man and a woman is “not the only stable living unit which is entitled to legal protection in regards to socioeconomic rights and responsibilities.” In 1993, the nineteenth General Synod called on members of the church for greater leadership to end discrimination against gays and lesbians. And in 2005, the twenty-fifth General Synod affirmed equal marriage rights for couples regardless of sex. The resolution specifically opposed legislation that denies adult couples the right to marry based on gender. Id.
12. In July of 1977, the General Synod adopted a resolution resulting in the development of a Book of Worship for the UCC, which is a resource of liturgies and orders of religious services and ceremonies for clergy. The Book of Worship also serves as an instrument in bringing members closer to the Holy One in whom we live and move and have our being. Id.
13. As set forth in the UCC Book of Worship, the essence of marriage is a covenanted commitment that has its foundation in the faithfulness of God’s love. The marriage ceremony is the glad occasion on which two people unite in the mutual exchange of covenant promises. The presiding clergy person acts as an official representative of the church and gives the marriage the church’s blessing. The congregation joins in affirming the marriage and in offering support and thanksgiving for the new family. Id.
14. After the General Synod’s 2005 resolution affirming marriage equality, and as a result of that resolution, the order for a religious marriage ceremony appearing in the UCC’s
6 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 6 of 36

Book of Worship affirmed its support for “equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender.” As a result of the 2005 resolution, the UCC’s Book of Worship was modified so that it could be performed for same-sex couples in UCC Local Churches and by UCC authorized ministers. Importantly, the order for a Holy Union or religious marriage ceremony in the liturgy of the UCC has since 2005 been identical for same-sex and different-sex couples. Id.
15. Plaintiff The Central Conference of American Rabbis (“CCAR”) is the rabbinic leadership organization of the Reform Movement of Judaism. The CCAR, founded in 1889, is the oldest and largest rabbinic organization in North America, with a present membership of approximately 2000 rabbis. It projects a powerful voice in the religious life of the American and international Jewish communities. The CCAR’s unique contribution to a continued vibrant Jewish community and Reform Movement lies in its work fostering excellence in Reform Rabbis; enhancing unity and connectedness among Reform Jews; applying Jewish values to contemporary life; and creating a compelling and accessible Judaism for today and the future. See CCAR Decl.
16. Twenty-five CCAR rabbis serve congregations and communities in North Carolina. Consistent with the fundamental principle of Judaism that every human being is created in God’s image, the CCAR has been in the vanguard of support for the full recognition of equality for lesbians and gays in society. Since 1993, the CCAR has been on record supporting full civil rights for gays and lesbians. Id.
17. In 1996, the CCAR articulated its support for full equal civil rights, including marriage for gay and lesbian couples and its opposition to governmental efforts to ban gay and lesbian marriage. In 2000, at the CCAR annual national convention held in Greensboro, North Carolina, the plenum passed overwhelmingly a resolution declaring that the relationship of a
7 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 7 of 36

Jewish, same-sex couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual and resolving, further, to support the decision of those of its members who choose to officiate at rituals of marriage for such couples. Further, it called upon the CCAR to develop both educational and liturgical resources in this area for use by CCAR rabbis in officiating at samesex marriage ceremonies. Id.
18. Pursuant to the 2000 resolution described above, the CCAR provides extensive resources for rabbis conducting gay and lesbian marriages, including CCAR resolutions related to gay and lesbian couples and marriage, important Internet links, marital vow variations, Hebrew and English options for wedding blessings, Ketubot (Jewish marriage contracts) for same-sex couples, a Document of Separation, and guidance for pre-marital counseling for samesex couples. Id.
19. Plaintiff The Alliance of Baptists, Inc. (“AOB”) is a Protestant religious organization (ecclesia body) incorporated in the State of North Carolina. It was formed in 1987 to give a clear voice and witness to historic Baptist principles, freedoms, and traditions. The AOB is comprised of approximately 140 partner congregations in the United States and Canada, of which 17 are located in North Carolina. Among the AOB constituency, there are over 200 individual clergy and 1,000 individual supporters who reside, worship, and/or conduct their ministry in the state of North Carolina in various settings including healthcare, prisons, higher education, the military, and other specialized settings. See AOB Decl.
20. The AOB has a rich heritage of supporting equal rights and justice for all of God’s people, including those who are not of the Christian faith. The AOB is committed to fostering relationships, not only within the AOB but also with other people of faith, to create
8 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 8 of 36

places of refuge and renewal for those who are wounded or ignored by the church, to side with those who are poor, and to pursue justice with and for those who are oppressed. Id.
21. The AOB has an unwavering commitment to religious liberty and the robust protection of all people of faith, Christian or otherwise, as well as people of no faith at all, to freely exercise their religious beliefs. For the AOB, this commitment is enshrined in its covenant: “The principle of a free church in a free state and the opposition to any effort either by church or state to use the other for its own purposes.” Id.
22. For 20 years the AOB has called on its members to be welcoming and affirming of LGBT persons. The AOB’s members have been called to accept, in response to the biblical mandate for justice, the call to witness before the state, the church, private institutions, and individuals on behalf of the civil rights and equality of opportunity for persons of same-sex sexual orientation, and to oppose the humiliation and violence done to them. AOB’s members are encouraged to welcome all persons without regard to sexual orientation or marital status into the life of the congregation and to recognize that there probably are persons of a same-sex sexual orientation already present and involved within the life of most congregations. AOB’s partner congregations are encouraged to recognize and develop gifts for ministry in all persons without regard to sexual orientation and to lift up the ideal of covenant – that is, challenging persons, whether heterosexual or otherwise, to express sexual intimacy within the context of a committed, monogamous relationship. Id.
23. Plaintiff The Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists (“AWAB”) is an association of Baptist churches from across the Baptist traditions that have gone on record as being welcoming and affirming of all persons without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. Founded in 1993, AWAB is the only organization solely devoted to building the Welcoming & Affirming movement within the Baptist traditions throughout the US. With a present membership of
9 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 9 of 36

approximately 95 churches across four Baptist denominational organizations, it projects a clear voice for inclusion in the religious life of the Baptist community. There are at least 23 AWAB affiliated clergy serving in congregations and other settings in North Carolina. There are also at least three AWAB affiliated seminarians preparing for ministry in North Carolina. See AWAB Decl.
24. In the Baptist tradition, officiating at life-cycle ceremonies—baptisms, weddings, funerals—is a primary pastoral function. For couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, a Christian wedding ceremony represents a public affirmation of their religious values and identity and their grounding as a married couple in the Christian tradition. Id.
25. Since the 1980s, AWAB affiliated clergy have been performing same-sex weddings and advocating for marriage equality in their states. In the early 2000s, many AWAB affiliated clergy stopped signing civil marriage licenses for opposite-sex couples and chose to officiate at any wedding ceremony they felt of clear conscience to perform without regard to it being sanctioned by any civil authority. Id. The Clergy Plaintiffs
26. Plaintiff Reverend Joe Hoffman is the Senior Minister of First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville, North Carolina, where he has served since 1996. Rev. Hoffman received his undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina in Asheville in 1981, his Master’s Degree in Christian Education from Scarritt Graduate School in Nashville in 1984, and his Master’s of Divinity from Candler School of Theology at Emory University in 1992. See Hoffman Decl.
27. Plaintiff Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison is the Senior Pastor of Holy Covenant United Church of Christ in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she has served since 2004. Rev. Allison earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from Baylor University in 1974 and her Ph.D. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth in 1986. See Allison Decl.
10 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 10 of 36

28. Plaintiff Reverend Nathan King is the Senior Pastor of Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ in Concord, North Carolina, where he has served since 2001. Rev. King earned his Bachelor of Science from Gardner-Webb College in 1984 and his Master of Divinity degree from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest in 1990. He was licensed for ministry in the Southern Baptist Church in the early 1980s. See King Decl.
29. Plaintiff Reverend Nancy Kraft is pastor of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she has served since 2005. In 1974, Rev. Kraft graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Education from Bowling Green State University. She received her Masters in Divinity from Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio in 1979 and later received her doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh in 1991. In 1978, Rev. Kraft was certified for pastoral ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and was ordained on March 11, 1979. See Kraft Decl.
30. Plaintiff Rabbi Jonathan Freirich is a congregational rabbi in Charlotte, North Carolina. In 1992, he graduated from Middlebury College in Vermont with a degree in Philosophy and History. In 1999, he graduated from the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Pennsylvania as an ordained rabbi. Rabbi Freirich is a longtime member of both the CCAR and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA), and has served congregations that are part of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ). See Freirich Decl.
31. Plaintiff Reverend Robin Tanner is the Lead Minister of the Piedmont Unitarian Universalist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she has served since 2010. She graduated from the University of Rochester after majoring in Religious Studies and Psychology. In 2009, Rev. Tanner subsequently completed her Masters of Divinity at Harvard. She was ordained as a Unitarian Universalist minister in 2009. See Tanner Decl.
11 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 11 of 36

32. Plaintiff Reverend Mark Ward is a minister at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Asheville, North Carolina, where he has served since 2005. He received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from Earlham College in 1975, his Masters degree in Philosophy from Bryn Mawr College in 1976, and his Masters degree from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism in 1979. He worked in journalism in Charleston, West Virginia from 1979 to 1984 and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1984 until 2004. Near the end of his career in Milwaukee, Rev. Ward enrolled in Meadville Lombard Theological School of Chicago, Illinois, and earned his Masters of Divinity in 2004. See Ward Decl.
33. Plaintiff Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty is pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she has served in different capacities since 1992. Rev. Petty received her undergraduate degree in Religion from Gardner-Webb College (now University) in 1985, her Masters of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1988, and her Doctor of Ministry from McCormick Theological Seminary in 1997. See Petty Decl.
34. Plaintiff The Very Reverend Todd Donatelli is Dean of The Cathedral of All Souls in Asheville, North Carolina. The Very Reverend Donatelli received his undergraduate degree from the University of Georgia and his Masters of Divinity degree from Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia. See Donatelli Decl.
35. Plaintiff The Reverend Canon Thomas Murphy is the Assistant to the Dean at The Cathedral of All Souls in Asheville, North Carolina. The Reverend Canon Murphy received his undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his Masters of Theology from Harvard University. He has also completed classes in Anglican Studies at
12 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 12 of 36

Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia and Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. See Murphy Decl.
36. Plaintiff Reverend Milly Morrow is Canon of Missional Formation at The Cathedral of All Souls in Asheville, North Carolina, where she previously served as youth minister. Reverend Milly Morrow received her undergraduate degree and Masters Degree from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. See Morrow Decl.
37. Plaintiff Rabbi Lucy H.F. Dinner is the Senior Rabbi at URJ Congregation Temple Beth Or in Raleigh, North Carolina. Rabbi Dinner received her undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She later attended the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion and was ordained in 1988. See Dinner Decl.
38. Plaintiff Rabbi Ari N. Margolis is the Assistant Rabbi/Educator at URJ Congregation Temple Beth Or in Raleigh, North Carolina. Rabbi Margolis received his undergraduate degree from Northwestern University. He later attended the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion and was ordained in 2010. See Margolis Decl.
39. Plaintiff Ariel Edery is the Rabbi for Beth Shalom congregation in Raleigh, North Carolina. Rabbi Edery received a Bachelors of Arts degree from the Hebrew University. He later attended the Hebrew Union College and was ordained in 2001. Rabbi Edery was raised in Argentina and is now a naturalized United States citizen. See Edery Decl.
40. Plaintiff Eric M. Solomon is the Rabbi at Beth Meyer Synagogue in Raleigh, North Carolina. Rabbi Solomon received his undergraduate degree from the University of Maryland at College Park. He later attended the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion and was ordained in 2000. See Solomon Decl.
13 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 13 of 36

41. Plaintiff Reverend Russ Dean is co-pastor at Park Road Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Reverend Dean received his undergraduate degree from Furman University, his Master of Divinity degree from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and his Doctor of Ministry from Beeson Divinity School. See Russ Dean Decl.
42. Plaintiff Amy Jacks Dean is co-pastor at Park Road Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina with her husband, Plaintiff Reverend Russ Dean. Reverend Amy Jacks Dean received her undergraduate degree from Presbyterian College and her Master of Divinity from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. See Amy Jacks Dean Decl. The Couple Plaintiffs
43. Plaintiff Kay Diane Ansley resides in Old Fort, North Carolina. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of West Georgia in 1983 and a degree from the American Institute for Paralegal Studies in 1993. She previously worked in law enforcement for 22 years and now works for a local physician as a Patient Scheduler and Medical Records Custodian. Diane is a member of First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville. See Ansley Decl.
44. Diane resides in Old Fort with her partner of 14 years, Plaintiff Catherine “Cathy” McGaughey. In 1982, Cathy earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Georgia State University’s College of Urban Life. She currently works for a local physician as an Accounts Receivable Specialist and bookkeeper. She also does bookkeeping for two faith-based non-profit groups in Asheville and Georgia and for a small retail firm in Asheville. Cathy is on the Executive Board at First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville. See McGaughey Decl.
14 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 14 of 36

45. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Ansley and McGaughey would seek to be married.
46. Plaintiffs Ansley and McGaughey have applied for and been denied a marriage license.
47. Plaintiffs Ansley and McGaughey would like to have Rev. Hoffman perform a Holy Union religious marriage ceremony at First Congregational United Church of Christ.
48. Plaintiff Elizabeth “Lisa” Cloninger resides in Charlotte, North Carolina. Lisa has earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Child and Family Development from the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and a Master of Social Work degree from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. She is a unit supervisor with Mecklenburg County Children’s Developmental Services and is also an adjunct instructor in the Early Childhood Education program at Central Piedmont Community College. Lisa is an Elder at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ in Charlotte and currently serves as the President of the church’s Consistory. See Cloninger Decl.
49. For the past thirteen years Lisa has been the partner of Plaintiff Kathleen Smith. Kathleen received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Mars Hill University in 1975 and a Master of Education degree from Winthrop University in 1977. She has taught school and administered operations for a local arts education non-profit organization, as well as administering a major grant program at Central Piedmont Community College. She is currently on a contract assignment at Duke Energy through Business Control Systems. At Holy Covenant United Church of Christ, Kathleen has been a deacon and interim accompanist and has in the past chaired the Worship and Finance Committees. She currently leads the Communications Team. See Smith Decl.
15 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 15 of 36

50. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Cloninger and Smith would seek to be married.
51. Plaintiffs Cloninger and Smith have applied for and been denied a marriage license.
52. Plaintiffs Cloninger and Smith intend to have Rev. Allison perform a Holy Union religious marriage ceremony on October 3, 2014 at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ.
53. Plaintiff Shauna Bragan resides in Concord, North Carolina. Shauna received a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology in 2004 from Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina. Shauna is a published environmental scientist and currently works as a Customer Service Agent for a business that provides customer care, customer retention, and revenue recovery services to a host of industries, including financial services, telecommunications and government. Shauna faithfully attends Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ in Concord, North Carolina. See Bragan Decl.
54. Shauna resides with her partner, Plaintiff Stacy Maloney. Stacy earned her Bachelor of Science degree in 2004 in Physical Education. For the past seven years Stacy has worked as the adaptive physical education teacher in Cabarrus County. She has also taught a course on adapted sport at Wingate University. In August 2013, Stacy opened a day program for adults with disabilities in Cabarrus County. She also runs a summer program for students with disabilities in Cabarrus and surrounding counties. Stacy is an active member of Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ in Concord. See Maloney Decl.
55. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Maloney and Bragan would seek to be married.
16 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 16 of 36

56. Plaintiffs Maloney and Bragan have applied for and been denied a marriage license.
57. Plaintiffs Maloney and Bragan would like to have a Holy Union religious marriage ceremony at Trinity Reformed United Church of Christ.
58. Plaintiff Cathy Fry resides in Huntersville, North Carolina, with her partner, Joanne Marinaro. Cathy graduated from Catawba College in 1980 with a degree in Psychology and from the University of North Carolina – Charlotte in 1988 with a Masters of Arts in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Cathy now owns and operates a small furniture company with her brother. Cathy has been a member of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church for about 25 years. See Fry Decl.
59. Since 1986, Cathy has been the partner of Plaintiff Joanne Marinaro. Joanne graduated from the University of Central Florida in 1984 with a degree in Criminal Justice. She is a Senior Manager for a North Carolina based Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Joanne has been a member of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church for about 25 years. See Marinaro Decl.
60. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Fry and Marinaro would seek to be married.
61. Plaintiffs Fry and Marinaro have applied for and been denied a marriage license. 62. Plaintiffs Fry and Marinaro would like to have a wedding ceremony at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church performed by Pastor Nancy Kraft. 63. Plaintiff Joel Blady resides in Charlotte, North Carolina, with his partner, Jeffrey Addy. Joel graduated from Mercer County Community College in 1984 with a certificate of proficiency in mortuary science. In 1985, he received an Associate of Science degree from
17 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 17 of 36

Mercer County Community College. He has worked in the funeral industry for the past 32 years. Joel has been a member of Temple Beth El and Temple Israel in Charlotte, North Carolina since 2004. See Blady Decl.
64. Plaintiff Jeffrey Addy resides in Charlotte, North Carolina, with his partner, Joel Blady. Jeffrey received an Associate’s Degree from Muskingum Technical College in Zanesville, Ohio in 2001. He currently works in the healthcare industry in Charlotte. Jeffrey began attending Temple Beth El in 2011 when he and Joel Blady first became a couple. See Addy Decl.
65. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Blady and Addy would seek to be married.
66. Plaintiffs Blady and Addy have not applied for a marriage license because it would be futile for them to do so.
67. Plaintiffs Blady and Addy would like to have a wedding ceremony at Temple Beth El performed by Rabbi Jonathan Freirich.
68. Plaintiff Betty Mack resides in Asheville, North Carolina. Betty is in her 70s and is retired. Betty is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Asheville, North Carolina. See Mack Decl.
69. Betty has been in a committed relationship with Carol Taylor for over 41 years. Carol, who is also in her 70s, is also retired. Carol is also a member of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Asheville, North Carolina. See Taylor Decl.
70. If it were lawful to do so in North Carolina, Plaintiffs Mack and Taylor would seek to be married.
71. Plaintiffs Mack and Taylor have applied for and been denied a marriage license.
18 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 18 of 36

72. Plaintiffs Mack and Taylor would like to have a wedding ceremony at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation performed by Reverend Ward.
73. Plaintiffs file this case not to compel other faiths to conform to their religious beliefs but to assert their right to freely perform religious services and ceremonies consistent with their beliefs and practices, and to extend the equal protection of the laws to all of God’s children. Defendants
74. Defendant Roy Cooper is the Attorney General of North Carolina. In that capacity, it is his duty to appear for the State in any court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 114-2. It is the duty of Defendant Cooper to defend and enforce the laws of North Carolina.
75. Additionally, in that capacity, and among other relevant opinions, Defendant Cooper has advised that “a register of deeds would violate North Carolina law in issuing a marriage license to persons of the same gender. If, in issuing such a license, the register of deeds operates in bad faith he may subject himself to [certain civil and criminal] penalties . . . .” Re: Advisory Opinion: Issuance of Marriage Licenses to Individuals of Same Gender; Penalties, N.C. Op. Att’y Gen., 2004 WL 871437 (Mar. 29, 2004).
76. The Office of the Attorney General recently re-affirmed that opinion, issuing a letter to Defendant Reisenger on October 15, 2013, stating that “issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple would be a violation of the law” of North Carolina.
77. Defendant Cooper and his successors are sued in their official capacity only.
19 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 19 of 36

78. Defendant Drew Reisinger is the Register of Deeds for Buncombe County. In that capacity, he is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates.
79. Specifically, Defendant Reisinger presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted.
80. Defendant Reisinger and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 81. Defendant Ronald L. Moore is the District Attorney for Buncombe County. In that capacity, he is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within Buncombe County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 82. Defendant Moore and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 83. Defendant Wayne Nixon is the Register of Deeds for Cabarrus County. In that capacity, he is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates. 84. Specifically, Defendant Nixon presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted. 85. Defendant Nixon and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 86. Defendant Roxann Vaneekhoven is the District Attorney for Cabarrus County. In that capacity, she is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within Cabarrus County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 87. Defendant Vaneekhoven and her successors are sued in their official capacity only.
20 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 20 of 36

88. Defendant Tonia Hampton is the Register of Deeds for McDowell County. In that capacity, she is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates.
89. Specifically, Defendant Hampton presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted.
90. Defendant Hampton and her successors are sued in their official capacity only. 91. Defendant Bradley Greenway is the District Attorney for McDowell County. In that capacity, he is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within McDowell County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 92. Defendant Greenway and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 93. Defendant J. David Granberry is the Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg County. In that capacity, he is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates. 94. Specifically, Defendant Granberry presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted. 95. Defendant Granberry and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 96. Defendant Andrew Murray is the District Attorney for Mecklenburg County. In that capacity, he is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within Mecklenburg County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 97. Defendant Murray and his successors are sued in their official capacity only.
21 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 21 of 36

98. Defendant Laura M. Riddick is the Register of Deeds for Wake County. In that capacity, she is entrusted with the authority to carry out certain laws of the State, including the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates.
99. Specifically, Defendant Riddick presides over applications for marriage licenses, deciding whether a license should be granted.
100. Defendant Riddick and her successors are sued in their official capacity only. 101. Defendant Ned Mangum is the District Attorney for Wake County. In that capacity, he is the elected public official who represents the State in the prosecution of all criminal matters within Wake County, including violations of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 102. Defendant Mangum and his successors are sued in their official capacity only. 103. Defendants all have some connection with the enforcement of the North Carolina Marriage Laws. 104. Defendants’ actions constitute actions under color of law.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The North Carolina Marriage Laws
105. North Carolina law delegates to religious ministers the authority to conduct marriage ceremonies in North Carolina for couples who have obtained a valid license to marry, which marriages the State then recognizes as legally valid. As stated in North Carolina General Statute § 51-1, a “valid and sufficient marriage is created” when (1) the couple freely consent to the union “[i]n the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate” and “[w]ith the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife”; or (2) “[i]n accordance with any mode of
22 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 22 of 36

solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.”
106. However, ministers and others who are authorized to conduct marriages in North Carolina are expressly precluded by State law from performing any ceremony of marriage between same-sex couples, even if their faith and religious beliefs allow them to conduct such ceremonies and recognize those marriages.
107. North Carolina statutory law limits the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. North Carolina General Statute § 51-1 also provides in relevant part: “A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife . . . .”
108. North Carolina statutory law explicitly provides that marriages by persons of the same gender are not valid. North Carolina General Statute § 51-1.2 provides: “Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.”
109. This prohibition also has been made part of the North Carolina constitution through Amendment One, which was approved in the 2011 legislative session of the North Carolina General Assembly and subsequently adopted by ballot initiative on May 8, 2012.
110. Amendment One appears in the North Carolina Constitution as Article XIV, Section 6 and states: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
23 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 23 of 36

111. If a minister conducts any marriage ceremony between same-sex couples, he or she is guilty of a crime:
a. North Carolina General Statute § 51-6 states: “Solemnization without license unlawful. No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant.”
b. North Carolina General Statute § 51-7 states: “Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”
112. Many of the justifications offered by public officials in support of Amendment One and the other Marriage Laws and prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying have been based on a particular religious view regarding marriage and a desire to denigrate same-sex relationships and demean same-sex couples. Statements in support of Amendment One included the following:
24 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 24 of 36

a. State Senator James Forrester: “The Lord intended for a family to have one man and one woman.”1
b. House Majority Leader Paul “Skip” Stam: “‘In countries around the world where they have legitimized same-sex marriage, marriage itself is de-legitimized,’ Stam said. ‘About a fourth of the world allows polygamy. Polygamy would be next.’”2
c. State Senator James Forrester: “We need to reach out to them and get them to change their lifestyle back to the one we accept”; “[The City of Asheville, North Carolina is] a cesspool of sin.”3
d. State Senator Wesley Meredith: “‘We need to regulate marriage because I believe that marriage is between a man and woman,’ [State Senator Wesley Meredith] said. Meredith said the Bible provides the basis that marriage should be limited to a relationship between a man and a woman.”4
Impact Of And Irreparable Harm Caused By The North Carolina Marriage Laws 113. Marriage between two loving individuals is both a fundamental legal right and a
cornerstone of almost every religion. 114. Marriage creates mutual support systems and stable relationships for couples who
promise to spend their whole lives together. It creates more stable futures for the couples, and
1 State Senator James Forrester, Sponsor of Amendment One, Wedding Bills, The News & Observer (Mar. 2, 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/02/1022741/wedding-bills.html. 2 Craig Jarvis, Alan M. Wolf & Mary Cornatzer, GOP pushes same-sex marriage amendment, The News & Observer (Aug. 31, 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/31/1448973/gop-pushes-same-sex-marriageamendment.html#storylink=cpy. 3 Rob Schofield, Anti-gay lawmakers speak their (very troubled) minds, The Progressive Pulse (Sept. 9, 2011), http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2011/09/09/anti-gay-lawmakers-speak-their-very-troubled-minds. 4 Paul Woolverton, N.C. Senate Approves Amendment to Block Gay Marriage, Fayetteville Observer (Sept. 14, 2011), http://www.fayobserver.com/news/state/article_df7d48cf-1770-5f59-9975-11bc83b05347.html.
25 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 25 of 36

serves as a building block for larger family units. Married couples and their families also function as units within their religions and the larger communities in which they live.
115. The State of North Carolina, as well as the Federal Government, has chosen to recognize the societal importance of marriage by conferring benefits on married persons that it does not offer to single persons or even to couples that are not married. Among other things, married spouses may file joint tax returns, receive health benefits on a spouse’s health plan, have special rights when a spouse is hospitalized, and have certain automatic rights of survivorship upon a spouse’s death. As a result of the North Carolina Marriage laws, the Couple Plaintiffs, as well as all similarly situated individuals who reside in North Carolina and who wish to marry another same-sex person, are categorically denied these benefits.
116. The benefits of marriage are equally important and valid for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples.
117. The North Carolina Marriage Laws categorically and unconditionally prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage, and preclude the free and uninhibited exercise of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Under the North Carolina Marriage Laws, the Denominational and Religious Organizational Plaintiffs, Minister Plaintiffs, and Couple Plaintiffs are precluded even from conducting a marriage ceremony of any kind between two same-sex individuals. This represents an unlawful government intervention into the internal structure and practices of Plaintiffs’ religions.
118. By depriving the Plaintiffs of the freedom to perform religious marriage ceremonies or to marry, North Carolina stigmatizes Plaintiffs and their religious beliefs, and the State relegates the Couple Plaintiffs to second-class status. The laws forbidding same-sex marriage tell Plaintiffs that their religious views are invalid and same-sex relationships are less
26 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 26 of 36

worthy, thus humiliating each Plaintiff and denigrating the integrity and closeness of families and religious organizations, depriving Plaintiffs of the inclusive religious community of family units they wish to establish.
119. Furthermore, the North Carolina Marriage Laws, by preventing Plaintiffs from fully expressing their embrace and support of same-sex marriage on an equal basis with opposite-sex marriage, force Plaintiffs to either abstain from the recognition of marriage entirely, or else convey, against their will, the impression that opposite-sex marriages are more valued in the eyes of their respective faiths.
120. Defendants, in executing and enforcing the Marriage Laws, are acting under color of state law and thus depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
CLAIMS COUNT I First Amendment — Free Exercise (All Plaintiffs) 121. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 122. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .” 123. This prohibition is extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 124. The North Carolina Marriage Laws make it a criminal offense for any “minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of [North Carolina],” to solemnize the marriage of a same-sex couple. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-7.
27 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 27 of 36

125. Plaintiffs are (1) denominational and religious organizations, (2) ministers, and (3) congregants whose religious teaching and beliefs embrace same-sex marriage and allow such couples full access to the marriage rites of that faith, solemnizing and celebrating their marriage.
126. Under North Carolina law, the Clergy Plaintiffs are prohibited under threat of criminal prosecution from performing any such religious ceremonies, and the Couple Plaintiffs are prohibited from becoming married in the tradition of their respective faiths. Such laws violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
127. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature, subject them to criminal sanctions, and cause irreparable harm by burdening the free exercise of religion without any justification, let alone a compelling one.
128. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in this Complaint.
COUNT II First Amendment — Expressive Association
(All Plaintiffs) 129. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 130. “[I]mplicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment is a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 647 (2000) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Government may not burden this freedom through “intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association.” Id. at 648. 131. This prohibition is extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
28 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 28 of 36

132. The practice of conducting and participating in religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples is a constitutionally protected activity of expressive association. As reflected above, the religious teachings and activities of the Plaintiffs reflect the belief that same-sex couples wishing to be married should be afforded rights equal to, and be treated with the same dignity as, opposite-sex couples.
133. For example, the Plaintiff General Synod has an almost 40-year history of expressing support for, and advocating the equality of, same-sex couples, and amended its Book of Worship to permit a common religious ceremony for the religious recognition of a marriage of adult couples, be they gay or straight.
134. The North Carolina Marriage Laws, which make it a criminal offense for any “minister, officer, or any other person” to solemnize the marriage of a same-sex couple, impermissibly intrude on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by imposing significant burdens on their rights of expression association.
135. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature, subject them to criminal sanctions, and cause irreparable harm by burdening their associational rights without any justification, let alone a compelling one.
136. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in this Complaint.
COUNT III Denial of Due Process — Fundamental Right to Marry
(On Behalf of the Couple Plaintiffs) 137. The Couple Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
29 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 29 of 36

138. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes any State from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Governmental interference with a fundamental right may be sustained only upon a showing that the legislation is closely tailored to serve an important governmental interest.
139. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, marriage is a fundamental right, and choices about marriage, like choices about other aspects of family, are a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
140. North Carolina law denies the Couple Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples this fundamental right by denying them access to the state-recognized institution of marriage.
141. North Carolina can demonstrate no important interest to justify denying the Couple Plaintiffs this fundamental right. Indeed, North Carolina cannot demonstrate that the denial is tailored to any legitimate interest at all.
142. North Carolina’s prohibition of marriage between persons of the same sex violates the Due Process Clause.
143. The Couple Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm.
144. Accordingly, the Couple Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in this Complaint.
COUNT IV Denial of Equal Protection
(Couple Plaintiffs) 145. The Couple Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
30 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 30 of 36

146. Article XIV, Section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina and North Carolina General Statutes §§ 51-1, 51-1.2, 51-6, and 51-7 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs.
147. These laws restrict civil marriage to individuals of the opposite sex; gay and lesbian individuals are unable to marry. Thus, North Carolina law treats similarly-situated people differently by providing civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, but not to same-sex couples, which are expressly precluded from enjoying the panoply of rights associated with marriage. Gay men and lesbians are, therefore, unequal in the eyes of state law, and their families are denied the same respect as officially sanctioned families of opposite-sex individuals.
148. By purposefully denying civil marriage to gay and lesbian individuals, North Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals are unable to enter into marriages available through the State to opposite-sex couples solely because of their sexual orientation. Accordingly, these laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by casting gays and lesbians into disfavored legal status and categorizing them as “second-class citizens.”
149. These laws also violate the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminate on the basis of sex. Under these laws, a man who wishes to marry a man may not do so because he is a man, and a woman may not marry a woman because she is a woman. Thus, the laws limit civil marriage on the basis of sex.
150. North Carolina’s Marriage Laws directly and substantially interfere with the Couple Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry. The right to marry is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment as a vital personal right that is integral to an individual’s identity, autonomy,
31 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 31 of 36

dignity, and intimate associations. North Carolina’s laws restricting civil marriage to oppositesex couples infringe on the fundamental right of gay and lesbian individuals to marry without serving any legitimate governmental interest, let alone any important or compelling interest to which they are narrowly tailored.
151. Whether under a strict or heightened scrutiny analysis, or under a more lenient rational-basis analysis, these provisions of North Carolina law and the State’s constitution do not bear any relation to a legitimate governmental purpose and, thus, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
152. The Couple Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm.
153. Accordingly, the Couple Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in this Complaint.
IRREPARABLE INJURY 154. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 155. Plaintiffs are severely and irreparably injured by the challenged state laws and constitutional provision that violate the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. By way of example only, Plaintiffs’ injuries as a result of these discriminatory laws include the impairment of the free exercise of religion for all Plaintiffs; the deprivation of rights guaranteed the Couple Plaintiffs by the Fourteenth Amendment; and the severe humiliation, emotional distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, and stigma caused by the inability of the Couple Plaintiffs to marry and have society accord their unions and their families the same respect and dignity enjoyed by opposite-sex unions and
32 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 32 of 36

families. Because the Couple Plaintiffs cannot marry under North Carolina law, they cannot currently receive social security benefits or favorable treatment on income and estate taxes prescribed by State law. They also cannot currently claim benefits under various federal laws that apply only to married couples. Plaintiffs’ injuries will be redressed only if this Court declares these provisions unconstitutional and enjoins Defendants from enforcing them.
156. An actual and judicially cognizable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether the laws violate the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants are presently enforcing these State laws to the detriment of Plaintiffs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court:
A. To issue a declaratory judgment that the statutes and North Carolina constitutional provision at issue in this case, as applied to Plaintiffs, violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs;
B. To issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against any and all laws that impose or threaten criminal sanctions or otherwise prohibit the performance of religious rites that solemnize the union of same-sex couples, as denying all Plaintiffs their First Amendment, Free Exercise right to engage in such religious ceremonies, and their right to expressive association under the First Amendment.
C. To issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and all those acting in concert with them to prohibit enforcement of laws that deprive the Couple Plaintiffs and all other same-sex couples of the right to marry in accordance with Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
33 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 33 of 36

D. To issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and all those acting in concert with them to prohibit enforcement of laws that deprive the Clergy Plaintiffs the right to perform such marriages and give them legal effect and directing the Defendants to recognize marriages validly entered into by the Couple Plaintiffs and other samesex couples.
E. To award to Plaintiffs reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees; and F. To award such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and reasonable.
34 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 34 of 36

Dated: June 3, 2014
Jonathan S. Martel David J. Weiner Samuel Witten Sarah E. Warlick Thomas A. Glazer Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 942-5470 Fax: (202) 942-5999 Email: jonathan.martel@aporter.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Sean Morris Arnold & Porter LLP 777 South Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 243-4222 Email: sean.morris@aporter.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ S. Luke Largess S. Luke Largess /s/ Jacob H. Sussman Jacob Sussman /s/ John W. Gresham John W. Gresham Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: (704) 338-1220 Fax: (704) 338-1312 Email: llargess@tinfulton.com Email: jsussman@tinfulton.com Email: jgresham@tinfulton.com
Mark Kleinschmidt Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 312 West Franklin Street Chapel Hill NC 27516 Phone: (919) 240-7089 Fax: (919) 240-7822 Email: mkleinschmidt@tinfulton.com

35 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 35 of 36

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Amended Complaint with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Jacob H. Sussman Jacob Sussman Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: (704) 338-1220 Fax: (704) 338-1312 Email: jsussman@tinfulton.com
36 Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 52 Filed 06/03/14 Page 36 of 36

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH

GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH )

OF CHRIST, et al.,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Vs.

)

)

)

DREW RESINGER, REGISTER OF DEEDS

)

FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY, et al., ,

)

)

Defendants,

)

)

And

)

)

ROY COOPER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

)

NORTH CAROLINA,

)

)

Intervenor.

)

)

)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE

THIS MATTER is before the court on Thom Tillis’s, North Carolina Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Phil Berger’s, President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, on behalf of themselves, and their members and constituents (hereinafter “proposed intervenor” and/or “General Assembly”) Motion to Intervene (#107). For the reasons briefly discussed herein, the court will deny such request.
I. In order to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the proposed intervenors must establish: (1) that their motion was timely; (2) they have an

-1-

interest relating to the subject matter of the action; (3) a potential for impairment of that interest without intervention; and (4) the identified interest is not adequately represented by the other parties already present in the litigation. Teague v. Bakker, 931 F.2d 259, 260–61 (4th Cir.1991). Each factor will be considered seriatim.
A. Even though this action has been pending for several months, the court will consider the motion timely as the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014), occurred only four days before the proposed intervenors filed their motion. Schaefer v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2014 WL 4354536 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014) (denying certiorari).
B. The court next considers what interest the proposed intervenors have in this action. In order to intervene, a proposed intervenor must show that its interest is “significantly protectable.” Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531 (1971). The Supreme Court has also held that “certain public concerns may constitute an adequate ‘interest’ within the meaning of [Rule 24(a)(2)].” Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68 (1986) (citing Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129, 135 (1967). In Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Rubin, 170 F.R.D. 93 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), the district court considered a motion to intervene filed by the New York Speaker of the House where the constitutionality of a New York law was challenged. In conducting a nearly identical four-step analysis, the Commack court found at step two that the Speaker of the House had a sufficient interest in “upholding the constitutionality of the laws enacted by the State Legislature….” Id. at 101.
-2-

Finding that there is some persuasive authority for the proposition that a legislative body and its presiding officers have an interest in litigation that concerns the constitutionality of laws the legislature has passed, the court finds at step two that the proposed intervenors have an interest relating to the subject matter of this litigation.
C. As to the potential for impairment without the proposed intervention, the interest identified may well be impaired by the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bostic, which is undeniably the law of this circuit and binding on this lower court in light of the denial of certiorari. Considering the phrase “without the proposed intervention,” the potential for impairment is neither heightened nor lowered by the proposed intervenors’ participation or non-participation in light of adequate representation being afforded that interest by North Carolina’s Attorney General, as more fully discussed infra. In an abundance of caution, however, the court will resolve factor three in favor of the proposed intervenors as there exists a real and present potential for impairment.
D. Finally, the court has considered whether the interest identified by the proposed intervenors is adequately represented by the state defendants who are already parties to this lawsuit. In Commack, supra, after finding that the Speaker of the New York House had an interest in the litigation, the court went on to hold that “‘to intervene in a suit in [the] district court in which a state is already a party, ... [the movant] must overcome [the] presumption of adequate representation….’” Id. at 104 (quoting United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968, 984–85 (2d Cir.1984); citations omitted).
-3-

Here, too, a presumption of adequate representation arises, but is certainly subject to rebuttal by the proposed intervenors. The state defendants include, among others, five of the state’s district attorneys, all of whom are represented by a number of special deputies within the Office of the North Carolina Attorney General. Under North Carolina law, it is the duty of the North Carolina Attorney General to:
defend all actions in the appellate division in which the State shall be interested, or a party, and to appear for the State in any other court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 114-2(1).1 Consistent with that provision, the North Carolina Supreme Court has held that “the duties of the Attorney General in North Carolina as prescribed by statutory and common law include the duty to appear for and to defend the State or its agencies in all actions in which the State may be a party or interested.” Martin v. Thornburg, 320 N.C. 533, 546 (1987). Review of the pleadings in this matter reveals that the interests of the proposed intervenors and the state defendants are identical – to uphold and defend the laws of the State of North Carolina – and that those interests have been adequately represented by the Attorney General throughout this litigation. While the proposed intervenors may well not agree with admissions and concessions made by the state defendants in their Answer (#104) and subsequent pleadings, those admissions are clearly mandated by prevailing law in light of Bostic and the Attorney General’s obligations under Rule 11(b)(2). Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2).

1

The court notes the 2014 amendments to §114 as provided in S.L. 2014-100, which were approved August

7, 2014. Review of those amendments does not disclose any substantive change to §114-2.

-4-

Albeit in the context of a motion to intervene by a private concern, the adequacy of North Carolina’s defense of the Woman's Right to Know Act was recently addressed by the Fourth Circuit, which held as follows:
it is among the most elementary functions of a government to serve in a representative capacity on behalf of its people. In matters of public law litigation that may affect great numbers of citizens, it is the government's basic duty to represent the public interest. And the need for government to exercise its representative function is perhaps at its apex where, as here, a duly enacted statute faces a constitutional challenge. In such cases, the government is simply the most natural party to shoulder the responsibility of defending the fruits of the democratic process. Stuart v. Huff, 706 F.3d 345, 351 (4th Cir. 2013). North Carolina law makes it clear that it is the Attorney General who is charged with “shoulder[ing] the responsibility of defending the fruits of the democratic process.” Id. After careful review, the record before this court indicates that the Attorney General has in fact vigorously pursued North Carolina’s defense of the laws challenged in this action, first as a defendant and now as an intervenor himself. While the proposed intervenors certainly believe the Attorney General has abrogated his duty under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 114-2(1), nothing before this court supports such conclusion. Finally, the court has considered proposed intervenors’ argument that the Attorney General has improperly given up the right to appeal this court’s final decision; however, the court does not read the pleadings that broadly. While the state certainly cannot argue issues on appeal it does not believe have merit, if the state believes this court errs when it enters its judgment in this case, it is welcome and encouraged to file an appeal.
E.
-5-

Based on a full consideration of all the factors, the court finds that the proposed intervenors’ interests are, have been, and continue to be adequately represented by the North Carolina Attorney General. Intervention as of right will, therefore, be denied.
II. Finally, the court has considered the possibility of permissive joinder. In relevant part, Rule 24(b)(2) provides that the court may “permit a … state governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party's claim or defense is based on: (A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency ….”2 Clearly, a legislative body promulgates, debates, and passes laws; however, it is not even arguable that the legislature administers or enforces those laws. See N.C. Const. Art. II, § 20 “Powers of the General Assembly” (providing in relevant part that the General Assembly “shall prepare bills to be enacted into laws.”). Finding no basis for permissive intervention and no benefit that can be derived through permissive intervention, the proposed intervenors’ request for permissive intervention will also be denied.
ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene (#107) is DENIED.
Signed: October 10, 2014

2

Part “B” of Rule 24(a)(1) appears to be inapplicable to the motion now before the court as it deals with

intervention where state or federal regulations, orders, or agreements are placed at issue..

-6-

-7-

 
 General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 14-2225

Docketed: 11/10/2014

Nature of Suit: 3950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

Termed: 08/11/2015

General Synod v. Tim Moore

Appeal From: United States District Court for the Western District of

North Carolina at Charlotte

Fee Status: fee paid

Case Type Information: 1) Civil Private 2) private 3) null

Originating Court Information:

District: 0419-3 : 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH

Presiding Judge: Max O. Cogburn, Jr., U. S. District Court Judge

Date Filed: 04/28/2014

Date

Date Order/Judgment Date NOA

Order/Judgment:

EOD:

Filed:

10/10/2014

10/10/2014

11/07/2014

Date Rec'd COA:
11/07/2014

Prior Cases: None

Current Cases: Lead
Consolidated 14-2225 14-2225
Cross-Appeal 14-2225 14-2225

Member
14-2228 14-2230
14-2278 14-2279

Start

End

12/05/2014 12/05/2014

12/05/2014 12/05/2014

GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
Plaintiff - Appellee

John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 Email: jgresham@tinfulton.com [COR NTC Retained] TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203
Matthew Blake Huffman

JOSEPH HOFFMAN, Reverend Plaintiff - Appellee

Direct: 202-942-5326 Email: blake.huffman@aporter.com [COR NTC Retained] ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 Email: llargess@tinfulton.com [COR NTC Retained] TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 Email: jsussman@tinfulton.com [COR NTC Retained] TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

NANCY ELLETT ALLISON, Reverend Plaintiff - Appellee
NATHAN KING, Reverend Plaintiff - Appellee
NANCY KRAFT, Reverend Plaintiff - Appellee

John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

JONATHAN FREIRICH, Rabbi Plaintiff - Appellee
ROBIN TANNER, Reverend Plaintiff - Appellee

Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

MARK WARD, Reverend Plaintiff - Appellee
DR. NANCY E. PETTY, Reverend Plaintiff - Appellee

S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

KAY DIANE ANSLEY Plaintiff - Appellee
CATHERINE MCGAUGHEY Plaintiff - Appellee

Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

ELIZABETH CLONINGER, a/k/a Lisa Plaintiff - Appellee
KATHLEEN SMITH Plaintiff - Appellee
SHAUNA BRAGAN Plaintiff - Appellee

John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

STACY MALONEY Plaintiff - Appellee
CATHY FRY Plaintiff - Appellee

Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

JOANNE MARINARO Plaintiff - Appellee
JOEL BLADY Plaintiff - Appellee

S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

JEFFREY ADDY Plaintiff - Appellee
BETTY MACK Plaintiff - Appellee

Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

CAROL TAYLOR Plaintiff - Appellee
THE VERY REVEREND TODD DONATELLI
Plaintiff - Appellee
RABBI ARIEL EDERY Plaintiff - Appellee

John West Gresham Direct: 704-338-1220 ext 257 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

THE REVEREND CANON THOMAS MURPHY
Plaintiff - Appellee

Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN Matthew Blake Huffman

RABBIS

Direct: 202-942-5326

Plaintiff - Appellee

[COR NTC Retained]

(see above)

S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

ALLIANCE OF BAPTISTS, INCORPORATED
Plaintiff - Appellee

Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

REVEREND AMY JACKS DEAN Plaintiff - Appellee
ASSOCIATION OF WELCOMING & AFFIRMING BAPTISTS
Plaintiff - Appellee
REVEREND MILLY MORROW Plaintiff - Appellee

Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

REVEREND RUSS DEAN Plaintiff - Appellee
RABBI ERIC M. SOLOMON Plaintiff - Appellee
RABBI ARI N. MARGOLIS Plaintiff - Appellee

Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

RABBI LUCY H. F. DINNER Plaintiff - Appellee
v.

Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Matthew Blake Huffman Direct: 202-942-5326 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
S. Luke Largess Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jacob H. Sussman Direct: 704-338-1220 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

ROY COOPER, Attorney General of North Carolina
Defendant

DREW REISINGER, Register of Deeds Defendant

Tikkun A. S. Gottschalk Direct: 828-251-0600 X14 Email: tikkun@dglawpa.com [NTC For Information Only] DEUTSCH & GOTTSCHALK, PA 75 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801

WAYNE NIXON, Register of Deeds Defendant

TONIA HAMPTON, Register of Deeds Defendant

J. DAVID GRANBERRY, Register of Deeds Defendant

LAURA M. RIDDICK, Register of Deeds Defendant
RONALD L. MOORE, District Attorney Defendant
ROXANN VANEEKHOVEN, District Attorney
Defendant
BRADLEY GREENWAY, District Attorney Defendant
ANDREW MURRAY, District Attorney Defendant
NED MANGUM, District Attorney Defendant
v.

THOM TILLIS, Speaker of the NC House of Representatives Terminated: 08/11/2015
Movant - Appellant

TIM MOORE, Speaker of the NC House of Representatives
Movant - Appellant

John C. Eastman Direct: 877-855-3330 Email: jeastman@chapman.edu [COR NTC Retained] CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 1 University Drive Orange, CA 92866-0000
Noel Johnson Email: njohnson@publicinterestlegal.org [COR NTC Retained] PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION 32 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204
Kaylan Lytle Phillips

PHIL BERGER, President Pro Tempore of the NC Senate
Movant - Appellant

Direct: 317-203-5599 Email: kphillips@publicinterestlegal.org [COR NTC Retained] PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION Suite 1675 32 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204
Robert Daniel Potter, Jr. Direct: 704-552-7742 Email: rdpotter@bellsouth.net [COR NTC Retained] ROBERT D. POTTER, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW 5821 Fairview Road Charlotte, NC 28209
Joseph Adrian Vanderhulst Email: jvanderhulst@publicinterestlegal.org [COR NTC Retained] PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION 32 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204
John C. Eastman Direct: 877-855-3330 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Noel Johnson [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Kaylan Lytle Phillips Direct: 317-203-5599 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Robert Daniel Potter, Jr. Direct: 704-552-7742 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

Joseph Adrian Vanderhulst [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; JOSEPH HOFFMAN, Reverend; NANCY ELLETT ALLISON, Reverend; NATHAN KING, Reverend; NANCY KRAFT, Reverend; JONATHAN FREIRICH, Rabbi; ROBIN TANNER, Reverend; MARK WARD, Reverend; DR. NANCY E. PETTY, Reverend; KAY DIANE ANSLEY; CATHERINE MCGAUGHEY; ELIZABETH CLONINGER, a/k/a Lisa; KATHLEEN SMITH; SHAUNA BRAGAN; STACY MALONEY; CATHY FRY; JOANNE MARINARO; JOEL BLADY; JEFFREY ADDY; BETTY MACK; CAROL TAYLOR; THE VERY REVEREND TODD DONATELLI; RABBI ARIEL EDERY; THE REVEREND CANON THOMAS MURPHY; CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS; ALLIANCE OF BAPTISTS, INC.; REVEREND AMY JACKS DEAN; ASSOCIATION OF WELCOMING & AFFIRMING BAPTISTS; REVEREND MILLY MORROW; REVEREND RUSS DEAN; RABBI ERIC M. SOLOMON; RABBI ARI N. MARGOLIS; RABBI LUCY H. F. DINNER

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

TIM MOORE, Speaker of the NC House of Representatives; PHIL BERGER, President Pro Tempore of the NC Senate

Movants - Appellants

and

ROY COOPER, Attorney General of North Carolina; DREW REISINGER, Register of Deeds; WAYNE NIXON, Register of Deeds; TONIA HAMPTON, Register of Deeds; J. DAVID GRANBERRY, Register of Deeds; LAURA M. RIDDICK, Register of Deeds; RONALD L. MOORE, District Attorney; ROXANN VANEEKHOVEN, District Attorney; BRADLEY GREENWAY, District Attorney; ANDREW MURRAY, District Attorney; NED MANGUM, District Attorney

Defendants

11/10/2014 1

Case docketed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-

2 pg, 11.97 KB DLH. Case manager: BarbaraRowe. [14-2225] BHR [Entered:

11/10/2014 03:56 PM]

11/10/2014 2
7 pg, 38.29 KB

DOCKETING NOTICE issued Re: [1] case docketed Initial forms due within 14 days. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00213-MOCDLH. Mailed to: Thomas Glazer, Tikkun Gottschalk, Noel Johnson, Jonathan Martel, Sean Morris, Joseph Vanderhulst, Sarah Warlick,

David Weiner, Samuel Witten. [14-2225] BHR [Entered: 11/10/2014 04:03 PM]

11/10/2014 3
1 pg, 32.74 KB

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Jacob H. Sussman for Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Incorporated, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H. F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Canon Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor and Mark Ward.[999472714] [14-2225] Jacob Sussman [Entered: 11/10/2014 04:31 PM]

11/10/2014 4
1 pg, 32.79 KB

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by John W. Gresham for Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Incorporated, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H. F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Canon Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor and Mark Ward.[999472721] [14-2225] John Gresham [Entered: 11/10/2014 04:40 PM]

11/10/2014 5
1 pg, 32.73 KB

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by S. Luke Largess for Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Incorporated, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H. F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Canon Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor and Mark Ward.[999472761] [14-2225] S. Largess [Entered: 11/10/2014 06:28 PM]

11/12/2014 6

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by John C.

1 pg, 915.3 KB Eastman for Phil Berger and Thom Tillis.[999473533] [14-2225]

John Eastman [Entered: 11/12/2014 12:38 PM]

11/12/2014 7

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Robert D.

1 pg, 17.29 KB Potter, Jr. for Phil Berger and Thom Tillis.[999473768] [14-2225]

Robert Potter [Entered: 11/12/2014 02:58 PM]

11/17/2014 8
1 pg, 17.2 KB

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Noel H. Johnson for Phil Berger and Thom Tillis.[999476600] [14-2225] Noel Johnson [Entered: 11/17/2014 03:04 PM]

11/21/2014 9

DOCKETING STATEMENT by Appellants Phil Berger and Thom

4 pg, 28.51 KB Tillis. [14-2225] Robert Potter [Entered: 11/21/2014 05:20 PM]

11/22/2014 10
2 pg, 16.72 KB

DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS (Local Rule 26.1) by Appellants Phil Berger and Thom Tillis. Was any question on Disclosure Form answered yes? No [999480540] [14-2225] Robert Potter [Entered: 11/22/2014 03:51 PM]

11/24/2014 11
2 pg, 15.88 KB

BRIEFING ORDER filed. Mailed to: Thomas Glazer, Tikkun Gottschalk, Jonathan Martel, Seam Morris, Sarah Warlick, David Weiner, Samuel Witten. Opening Brief and Appendix due 01/05/2015. Response Brief due 02/05/2015 [14-2225] BHR [Entered: 11/24/2014 08:45 AM]

11/24/2014 12

NOTICE re: Rule 30(b) Proposed Issues and Documents for Record

4 pg, 17.59 KB on Appeal by Phil Berger and Thom Tillis. [14-2225] Robert Potter

[Entered: 11/24/2014 11:56 AM]

11/24/2014 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Appellants Phil Berger and Thom

2 pg, 12.55 KB Tillis. Related documents: [12] Notice [14-2225] Robert Potter

[Entered: 11/24/2014 02:41 PM]

12/03/2014 14
1 pg, 30.4 KB

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Matthew Blake Huffman for Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Incorporated, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H. F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Canon Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor and Mark Ward.[999486309] [14-2225] Matthew Huffman [Entered: 12/03/2014 11:51 AM]

12/03/2014 15
0 pg, 0 KB

(ENTRY RESTRICTED) APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Jonathan Martel for Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Incorporated, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H. F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Canon Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor and Mark Ward.[999486511] [14-2225]--[Edited 12/04/2014 by BHR] Matthew Huffman [Entered: 12/03/2014 02:24 PM]

12/04/2014 16
1 pg, 13.65 KB

Docket correction requested from Matthew Blake Huffman for Central Conference of American Rabbis, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nancy Ellett Allison, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Jonathan Freirich, Robin Tanner, Mark Ward, Nancy E. Petty, Kay Diane Ansley, Catherine McGaughey, Elizabeth Cloninger, Kathleen Smith, Shauna Bragan, Stacy Maloney, Cathy Fry, Joanne Marinaro, Joel Blady, Jeffrey Addy, Betty Mack, Carol Taylor, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Canon Thomas Murphy, Alliance of Baptists, Incorporated, Amy Jacks Dean, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Milly Morrow, Russ Dean, Eric M. Solomon, Ari N. Margolis and Lucy H. F. Dinner and Jonathan S. Martel for General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nancy Ellett Allison, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Jonathan Freirich, Robin Tanner, Mark Ward, Nancy E. Petty, Kay Diane Ansley, Catherine McGaughey, Elizabeth Cloninger, Kathleen Smith, Shauna Bragan, Stacy Maloney, Cathy Fry, Joanne Marinaro, Joel Blady, Jeffrey Addy, Betty Mack and Carol Taylor. Re: [15] appearance of counsel. Access to appearance of counsel has been restricted to case participants. [14-2225] BHR [Entered: 12/04/2014 08:45 AM]

12/05/2014 17
6 pg, 18.99 KB

ORDER filed [999487944] rescinding briefing schedules, consolidating case 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279 with 142225 (L). Cross-appeal appellant: Thom Tillis and Phil Berger. Copies to all parties. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 142279] RW [Entered: 12/05/2014 10:04 AM]

12/05/2014 18
2 pg, 16.78 KB

BRIEFING ORDER filed. Name of Cross-Appeal Appellants for briefing purposes: Thom Tillis and Phil Berger. Opening Brief and Appendix due 01/05/2015. Opening/Response Brief Due: 02/09/2015. Response Brief due: 02/09/2015. Response/Reply Brief

Due 03/16/2015. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 12/05/2014 10:34 AM]

12/05/2014 19

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Christopher

2 pg, 492.93 KB A. Hazlehurst for Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana Carignan,

Dana Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie Fisher-Borne, Crystal

Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan Parker, Leigh Smith

and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2228, Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn, Ellen

W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Lyn McCoy and Esmeralda

Mejia in 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279.[999488528] [14-2225, 14-

2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Christopher Hazlehurst

[Entered: 12/05/2014 05:59 PM]

12/05/2014 20
2 pg, 492.9 KB

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Sarah E. Nudelman for Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana Carignan, Dana Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie Fisher-Borne, Crystal Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan Parker, Leigh Smith and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2228, Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn, Ellen W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Lyn McCoy and Esmeralda Mejia in 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279.[999488531] [14-2225, 142228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Sarah Nudelman [Entered: 12/05/2014 06:29 PM]

12/05/2014 21

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Kerri-Ann

2 pg, 493.21 KB Limbeek for Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana Carignan, Dana

Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie Fisher-Borne, Crystal

Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan Parker, Leigh Smith

and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2228, Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn, Ellen

W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Lyn McCoy and Esmeralda

Mejia in 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279.[999488533] [14-2225, 14-

2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Kerri-Ann Limbeek [Entered:

12/05/2014 06:43 PM]

12/05/2014 22

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by W. Rudolph

2 pg, 493.24 KB A. Kleysteuber for Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana

Carignan, Dana Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie Fisher-

Borne, Crystal Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan

Parker, Leigh Smith and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2228, Pearl Berlin,

Jane Blackburn, Ellen W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Lyn

McCoy and Esmeralda Mejia in 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-

2279.[999488534] [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279]

William Kleysteuber [Entered: 12/05/2014 06:55 PM]

12/12/2014 23

MOTION by Appellants Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2225,

10 pg, 70.05 KB 14-2228, 14-2230, Appellees Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-

2278, 14-2279 for stay of proceedings pending resolution of

petitions for writ of certiorari. Date and method of service:

12/12/2014 ecf. [999492443] [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 142278, 14-2279] Noel Johnson [Entered: 12/12/2014 04:14 PM]

12/18/2014 24
1 pg, 10.75 KB

NOTICE ISSUED to Central Conference of American Rabbis, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nancy Ellett Allison, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Jonathan Freirich, Robin Tanner, Mark Ward, Nancy E. Petty, Kay Diane Ansley, Catherine McGaughey, Elizabeth Cloninger, Kathleen Smith, Shauna Bragan, Stacy Maloney, Cathy Fry, Joanne Marinaro, Joel Blady, Jeffrey Addy, Betty Mack, Carol Taylor, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Canon Thomas Murphy, Alliance of Baptists, Incorporated, Amy Jacks Dean, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Milly Morrow, Russ Dean, Eric M. Solomon, Ari N. Margolis and Lucy H. F. Dinner in 14-2225, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie Fisher-Borne, Crystal Hendrix, Leigh Smith, Shana Carignan, Megan Parker, Terri Beck, Leslie Zanaglio, Lee Knight Caffery, Dana Draa, Shawn Long and Craig Johnson in 142228 and 14-2278, Esmeralda Mejia, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Ellen W. Gerber, Pearl Berlin, Lyn McCoy and Jane Blackburn 14-2230 and 14-2279 requesting response to Motion for stay of proceedings [23]Response due: 12/23/2014 by 12:00 p.m. [999496382].. [142225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 12/18/2014 12:34 PM]

12/22/2014 25
1 pg, 16.93 KB

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Joseph A. Vanderhulst for Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279.[999498811] [14-2225, 14-2228, 142230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Joseph Vanderhulst [Entered: 12/22/2014 04:16 PM]

12/22/2014 26
6 pg, 46.72 KB

RESPONSE/ANSWER by Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana Carignan, Dana Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie FisherBorne, Crystal Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan Parker, Leigh Smith and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2228, Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn, Ellen W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Lyn McCoy and Esmeralda Mejia in 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279 to Motion for other relief [23], notice requesting response [24]. Nature of response: in opposition. [14-2228, 14-2225, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Garrard Beeney [Entered: 12/22/2014 07:04 PM]

12/23/2014 27
6 pg, 291 KB

RESPONSE/ANSWER by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Incorporated, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H. F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft,

Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Canon Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor and Mark Ward in 14-2225 to Motion for other relief [23], notice requesting response [24]. Nature of response: in opposition. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] S. Largess [Entered: 12/23/2014 09:54 AM]

12/30/2014 28
4 pg, 20.47 KB

MOTION by Appellants Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2225 to extend filing time for opening brief and appendix. Date and method of service: 12/30/2014 ecf. [999502449] [14-2225, 14-2228, 142230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Robert Potter [Entered: 12/30/2014 03:34 PM]

12/30/2014 29
2 pg, 10.29 KB

ORDER filed [999502465] granting Motion to extend filing time [28], updating cross-appeal briefing order deadlines Opening brief and appendix due 01/15/2015. Opening/Response Brief Due: 02/19/2015. Response Brief due: 02/19/2015. Reply/Response Brief Due 03/26/2015. Copies to all parties. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 12/30/2014 03:43 PM]

01/05/2015 30

COURT ORDER filed [999504783] denying Motion for stay of

2 pg, 12.28 KB proceedings [23]. Copies to all parties. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230,

14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 01/05/2015 04:14 PM]

01/05/2015 31
2 pg, 10.54 KB

ORDER filed [999504800] updating cross-appeal briefing order deadlines. Opening brief and appendix due 03/16/2015. Opening/Response Brief Due: 04/20/2015. Response Brief due: 04/20/2015. Reply/Response Brief Due 05/26/2015. Copies to all parties. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 01/05/2015 04:23 PM]

01/14/2015 32

SUPREME COURT REMARK--petition for writ of certiorari filed.

1 pg, 55.93 KB 01/09/2015. 14-823. [14-2228, 14-2225, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-

2279] SJC [Entered: 01/14/2015 02:10 PM]

02/04/2015 33
3 pg, 35.31 KB

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES (FRAP 28(j)) by Appellants Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, Appellees Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2278, 14-2279. [999523773]. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Noel Johnson [Entered: 02/04/2015 03:17 PM]

02/05/2015 34
1 pg, 16.91 KB

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Kaylan L. Phillips for Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2225, 14-2228, 142230, 14-2278, 14-2279.[999524544] [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Kaylan Phillips [Entered: 02/05/2015 02:26 PM]

02/10/2015 35
6 pg, 19.13 KB

COURT ORDER filed [999527266] placing case in abeyance. Cases 14-2225,14-2228,14-2230,14-2278,14-2279 placed in abeyance pending decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556; Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-562; DeDoer v. Synder, No 14-571; and Bourke v. Beshear, No. 14-574 from U. S. Supreme Court. Copies to all parties. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 02/10/2015 04:44 PM]

06/30/2015 36

SUPREME COURT REMARK--petition for writ of certiorari

1 pg, 63.25 KB denied. 06/30/2015 [14-2228, 14-2225, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279]

SJC [Entered: 06/30/2015 02:18 PM]

07/01/2015 37
6 pg, 18.47 KB

MOTION by Appellants Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2225 Tim Moore substituted for Thom Tillis as speaker of the NC House to dismiss appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) [37]. Date and method of service: 07/01/2015 ecf. [999613204] [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Robert Potter [Entered: 07/01/2015 11:28 AM]

07/01/2015 38
1 pg, 10.75 KB

NOTICE ISSUED requesting response to Motion to dismiss appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) [37]. Responses due: 07/13/2015.[999613414]. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 07/01/2015 01:33 PM]

07/13/2015 39
7 pg, 34.07 KB

RESPONSE/ANSWER by Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana Carignan, Dana Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie FisherBorne, Crystal Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan Parker, Leigh Smith and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2228, Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn, Ellen W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Lyn McCoy and Esmeralda Mejia in 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279 to Motion to dismiss appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) [37]. Nature of response: in support of. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 142279] Garrard Beeney [Entered: 07/13/2015 03:24 PM]

07/13/2015 40

RESPONSE/ANSWER by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists,

6 pg, 285.68 KB Incorporated, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association

of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan,

Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy

Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H. F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel

Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United

Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft,

Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro,

Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Canon Thomas Murphy,

Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner,

Carol Taylor and Mark Ward in 14-2225 to Motion to dismiss

appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) [37], Response [39], notice

requesting response [38]. Nature of response: in support of. [14-

2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Jacob Sussman [Entered: 07/13/2015 04:51 PM]

07/16/2015 41

MOTION by Appellees Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana

7 pg, 222.29 KB Carignan, Dana Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie Fisher-

Borne, Crystal Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan

Parker, Leigh Smith and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2228, Appellees

Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn, Ellen W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-

Mejia, Lyn McCoy and Esmeralda Mejia in 14-2230, Appellants

Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana Carignan, Dana Draa,

Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie Fisher-Borne, Crystal Hendrix,

Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan Parker, Leigh Smith and Leslie

Zanaglio in 14-2278, Appellants Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn,

Ellen W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Lyn McCoy and

Esmeralda Mejia in 14-2279 to remand case. Date and method of

service: 07/16/2015 ecf. [999622463] [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230,

14-2278, 14-2279] Garrard Beeney [Entered: 07/16/2015 05:41

PM]

07/20/2015 42
1 pg, 8.85 KB

NOTICE ISSUED to Dr. John C. Eastman, Mr. Noel Johnson, Ms. Kaylan Lytle Phillips, Mr. Robert Daniel Potter, Jr., and Joseph Adrian Vanderhulst for Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2225 requesting response to Motion to remand case [41]. Response due: 07/30/2015.[999623952]. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 07/20/2015 03:37 PM]

07/21/2015 43
7 pg, 20.84 KB

RESPONSE/ANSWER by Phil Berger and Thom Tillis in 14-2225 (TIM MOORE has been substituted for Thom Tillis as Speaker of the NC House of Representatives) to Motion to remand case [41], notice requesting response [42]. Nature of response: in opposition. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Robert Potter [Entered: 07/21/2015 11:37 AM]

07/30/2015 44
1 pg, 41 KB

Letter re: Letter seeking permission to withdraw as counsel of record by Appellees Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana Carignan, Dana Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie FisherBorne, Crystal Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan Parker, Leigh Smith and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2228, Appellees Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn, Ellen W. Gerber, Christina GinterMejia, Lyn McCoy and Esmeralda Mejia in 14-2230, Appellants Terri Beck, Lee Knight Caffery, Shana Carignan, Dana Draa, Chantelle Fisher-Borne, Marcie Fisher-Borne, Crystal Hendrix, Craig Johnson, Shawn Long, Megan Parker, Leigh Smith and Leslie Zanaglio in 14-2278, Appellants Pearl Berlin, Jane Blackburn, Ellen W. Gerber, Christina Ginter-Mejia, Lyn McCoy and Esmeralda Mejia in 14-2279. [999631507] [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-

2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] Kerri-Ann Limbeek [Entered: 07/30/2015 02:33 PM]

08/11/2015 45
6 pg, 20.68 KB

COURT ORDER filed [999638676] granting Motion to dismiss appeals pursuant to FRAP 42(b) [37]; denying Motion to remand [41]. Copies to all parties. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279] RW [Entered: 08/11/2015 04:04 PM]

08/11/2015 46

Rule 42(b) mandate issued. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-

6 pg, 21.18 KB 00213-MOC-DLH. [14-2225, 14-2228, 14-2230, 14-2278, 14-2279]

RW [Entered: 08/11/2015 04:07 PM]

 
 U.S. District Court Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14−cv−00213−MOC−DLH

CLOSED

General Synod of The United Church of Christ et al v. Cooper et al Assigned to: District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell Related Cases: 1:15−cv−00274−MOC−DLH
1:16−cv−00054−MOC−DLH
Case in other court: FCCA, 14−02225 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/28/2014 Date Terminated: 10/10/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional − State Statute Jurisdiction: Federal Question

General Synod of The United Church of Christ

represented by David Weiner Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 202−942−6702 Fax: 202−942−5999 Email: David.Weiner@aporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owens 301 East Park Ave. Charlotte, NC 28203 704−338−1220 Ext. 257 Fax: 704−338−1312 Email: jgresham@tinfulton.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 202−942−5470 Fax: 202−942−.5999 Email: Jonathan.Martel@aporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 312 W. Franklin St Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919−240−7089 Fax: 919−967−4953 Email: mkleinschmidt@tinfulton.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen 301 East Park Ave. Charlotte, NC 28203 704−338−1220

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 1 of 36

Fax: 704−338−1312 Email: llargess@tinfulton.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 202−942−6115 Fax: 202−942−5999 Email: Samuel.Witten@aporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 202−942−6409 Fax: 202−942−5999 Email: Sarah.Warlick@aporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris Arnold & Porter LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−243−4222 Fax: 213−243−4199 Email: Sean.Morris@aporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 202−942−5327 Fax: 202−942−5999 Email: Tom.Glazer@aporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman P.O. Box 79225 Waverly, MA 02479 857−242−6740 Email: jakesussmanlaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joseph Hoffman Reverend

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 2 of 36

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nancy Ellett Allison Reverend

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 3 of 36

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nathan King Reverend

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 4 of 36

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nancy Kraft Reverend

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 5 of 36

Plaintiff
Jonathan Freirich Rabbi

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 6 of 36

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robin Tanner Reverend

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address)
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 7 of 36

Plaintiff
Mark Ward Reverend

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 8 of 36

Plaintiff
Dr. Nancy E. Petty Reverend

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kay Diane Ansley

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 9 of 36

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Catherine McGaughey

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 10 of 36

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Elizabeth Cloninger also known as Lisa

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 11 of 36

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kathleen Smith

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 12 of 36

Plaintiff Shauna Bragan

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 13 of 36

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Stacy Maloney

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address)
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 14 of 36

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Cathy Fry

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joanne Marinaro

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 15 of 36

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joel Blady

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 16 of 36

Plaintiff Jeffrey Addy

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 17 of 36

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Betty Mack

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address)
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 18 of 36

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carol Taylor

represented by David Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John West Gresham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Martel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark James Kleinschmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Luke Largess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Witten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Warlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Glazer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 19 of 36

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff The Very Reverend Todd Donatelli

represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rabbi Ariel Edery

represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff The Reverend Canon Thomas Murphy

represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Central Conference of American Rabbis

represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Alliance of Baptists, Inc.

represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Reverend Amy Jacks Dean

represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 20 of 36

Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists
Plaintiff Reverend Milly Morrow
Plaintiff Reverend Russ Dean
Plaintiff Rabbi Eric M. Solomon
Plaintiff Rabbi Ari N. Margolis
Plaintiff Rabbi Lucy H.F. Dinner

represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by S. Luke Largess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob H. Sussman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant

Roy Cooper

represented by Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito

Attorney General of North Carolina

N.C. Department of Justice

114 W. Edenton Street

P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602−0629

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 21 of 36

Defendant Drew Reisinger Register Of Deeds
Defendant Wayne Nixon Register Of Deeds
Defendant Tonia Hampton Register Of Deeds
Defendant J. David Granberry Register Of Deeds

919−716−0185 Fax: 919−716−6759 Email: ovysotskaya@ncdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Tikkun A.S. Gottschalk Deutsch & Gottschalk 75 N. Market St. Asheville, NC 28801 828−251−0600 Fax: 828−251−5508 Email: tikkun@dglawpa.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Martin Koch Law Offices of Richard M. Koch, PA 3220−201 Prosperity Church Road Charlotte, NC 28269 704−503−5700 Fax: 704−503−5707 Email: kochlaw@ctc.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Philip Scott Anderson Long, Parker, Warren & Jones, P.A. P.O. Box 7216 Asheville, NC 28802 828−258−2296 Fax: 828−253−1073 Email: philip@longparker.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Spencer Adden , Jr. Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune Suite 860 831 E. Morehead St. Charlotte, NC 28202 704−377−1634 Fax: 704−342−3308 Email: Radden@rbcwb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald L. Gibson Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P. 831 E. Morehead Street, Ste. 860 Charlotte, NC 28202 704/377−1634 Fax: 704/343−3308 Email: rgibson@rbcwb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 22 of 36

Defendant
Laura M. Riddick Register Of Deeds

represented by Roger A. Askew Office of the Wake County Attorney PO Box 550 Raleigh, NC 27602 919−856−5500 Email: roger.askew@wakegov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Wood Warren Office of the Wake County Attorney PO Box 550 Raleigh, NC 27602 919−856−500 Email: swarren@wakegov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ronald L. Moore District Attorney

represented by Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Roxann Vaneekhoven District Attorney

represented by Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bradley Greenway District Attorney

represented by Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Andrew Murray District Attorney

represented by Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ned Mangum District Attorney

represented by Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Chris Sevier Proposed Intervenor−Plaintiff TERMINATED: 08/12/2014

represented by Chris Sevier 9 Music Square South Nashville, TN 37203 615−500−4411 PRO SE

Movant

Thom Tillis NC Speaker of the House of Representatives, Proposed

represented by John C. Eastman Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence c/o Chapman University Fowler School of

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 23 of 36

Intervenor−Defendant TERMINATED: 10/10/2014
Movant Phil Berger President Pro Tempore of the NC Senate, Proposed Intervenor−Defendant TERMINATED: 10/10/2014

Law One University Drive Orange, CA 92866 877−855−3330 Fax: 714−844−4817 Email: jeastman@chapman.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Potter , Jr. 5821 Fairview Road, Suite 207 Charlotte, NC 28209 704−552−7742 Fax: 704−552−9287 Email: rdpotter@bellsouth.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John C. Eastman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Potter , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/28/2014
04/28/2014 04/28/2014
04/28/2014
04/28/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0419−2293659), filed by Catherine McGaughey, Carol Taylor, Reverend Robin Tanner, Joanne Marinaro, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joel Blady, Kathleen Smith, Cathy Fry, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Shauna Bragan, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Reverend Mark Ward, Reverend Nathan King, Kay Diane Ansley, Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Kraft.(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by General Synod of The United Church of Christ (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward.Responses due by 5/15/2014 (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
4 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward.Responses due by 5/15/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
5 MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor,

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 24 of 36

04/28/2014
04/28/2014 04/28/2014 04/28/2014 04/28/2014 04/28/2014 04/28/2014

Reverend Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
6 Appendix by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward. Appendix re: 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of General Synod of The United Church of Christ, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Joseph Hoffman, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Nancy Ellett Allison, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Nathan King, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Nancy Kraft, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Robin Tanner, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Mark Ward, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Dr. Nancy E. Petty, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Kay Diane Ansley, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of Catherine "Cathy" McGaughey, # 12 Exhibit Declaration of Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, # 13 Exhibit Declaration of Kathleen Smith, # 14 Exhibit Declaration of Shauna Bragan, # 15 Exhibit Declaration of Stacy Maloney, # 16 Exhibit Declaration of Cathy Fry, # 17 Exhibit Declaration of Joanne Marinaro, # 18 Exhibit Declaration of Joel Blady, # 19 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey Addy, # 20 Exhibit Declaration of Betty Mack, # 21 Exhibit Declaration of Carol Taylor, # 22 Exhibit Advisory Opinion, N.C. Op. Att'y Gen. (May 14, 1996), # 23 Exhibit Advisory Opinion, N.C. Op. Att'y Gen. (2004))(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by S. Luke Largess on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Largess, S.) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to David Weiner Filing fee $ 276, receipt number 0419−2293807. by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jonathan Martel Filing fee $ 276, receipt number 0419−2293824. by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
10 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Glazer Filing fee $ 276, receipt number 0419−2293835. by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sean Morris Filing fee $ 276, receipt number 0419−2293839. by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sarah Warlick Filing fee $ 276, receipt number 0419−2293846. by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 25 of 36

Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Samuel Witten Filing fee $ 276, receipt number 0419−2293856. by Jeffrey Addy, Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Reverend Joseph Hoffman, Reverend Nathan King, Reverend Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Reverend Dr. Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Reverend Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Reverend Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

Case assigned to District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr and Magistrate Judge David Keesler. Notice: You must click this link to retrieve the Case Assignment Packet. Motions referred to David Keesler: 8 9 10 11 12 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 4 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. This is your only notice − you will not receive a separate document.(eef) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

14 Summons Issued Electronically as to All Defendants. NOTICE: Counsel shall print the summons and serve with other case opening documents in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.4 . (Attachments: # 1 summons, # 2 summons, # 3 summons, # 4 summons, # 5 summons, # 6 summons, # 7 summons, # 8 summons, # 9 summons, # 10 summons)(eef) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

15 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice added Samuel Witten for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/28/2014. (blf) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

Notice to Sarah, Warlick, Sean Morris, Thomas Glazer, Jonathan Martel, David Weiner, Samuel Witten: Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1 you are required to Register for ECF at www.ncwd.uscourts.gov. Deadline by 5/8/2014. (blf) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

16 ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice added Jonathan Martel for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/28/2014. (blf) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

17 ORDER granting 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice added David Weiner for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/28/2014. (blf) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

18 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice added Thomas Glazer for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/28/2014. (blf) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

19 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice added Sean Morris for Jeffrey Addy,Ellett Allison,Kay Diane Ansley,Joel Blady,Shauna Bragan,Jonathan Freirich,Cathy Fry,General Synod of The United Church of Christ,Joseph Hoffman,Nathan King,Nancy Kraft,Betty Mack,Stacy Maloney,Joanne Marinaro,Catherine McGaughey,Dr. Nancy E. Petty,Kathleen Smith,Robin Tanner,Carol Taylor and Mark Ward. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/28/2014. (eef) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

20 ORDER granting 12 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice added Sarah Warlick for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/28/2014. (blf) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014 21 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark James Kleinschmidt on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Kleinschmidt, Mark) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jeffrey Addy, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth Cloninger, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 6

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 26 of 36

04/29/2014 05/01/2014
05/06/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014
05/15/2014 05/15/2014 05/15/2014 05/15/2014 05/15/2014 05/15/2014
05/15/2014
05/16/2014 05/19/2014 05/19/2014

Appendix,,,,,,, 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 4 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages , 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
23 ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/28/2014. (tmg) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
24 Summons Reissued Electronically as to Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. NOTICE: Counsel shall print the summons and serve with other case opening documents in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.4 and Local Rule 73.1(A)(2). (Attachments: # 1 summons, # 2 summons, # 3 summons, # 4 summons, # 5 summons)(eef) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald L. Gibson on behalf of J. David Granberry (Gibson, Ronald) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Wood Warren on behalf of Laura M. Riddick (Warren, Scott) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Roger A. Askew on behalf of Laura M. Riddick (Askew, Roger) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jeffrey Addy, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth Cloninger, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 1 Complaint,, (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Tikkun A.S. Gottschalk on behalf of Drew Reisinger (Gottschalk, Tikkun) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: 1 Complaint,, by J. David Granberry. (Adden, Robert). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/15/2014)
31 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint by Drew Reisinger. (Gottschalk, Tikkun). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/15/2014)
32 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: 1 Complaint,, by Laura M. Riddick. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Extending time to Answer or Otherwise Respond)(Askew, Roger). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/15/2014)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito on behalf of Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
34 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: 1 Complaint,, and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/15/2014)
35 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint and to Extend Time to Respond to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Tonia Hampton.Responses due by 6/2/2014 (Anderson, Philip). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/15/2014)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by John West Gresham on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Gresham, John) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
37 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer complaint by Wayne Nixon. (Attachments: # 1 order allowing extension)(Koch, Richard). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/19/2014)
38 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard Martin Koch on behalf of Wayne Nixon (Koch, Richard) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 27 of 36

05/19/2014 05/19/2014 05/23/2014
05/23/2014
05/23/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/28/2014 05/30/2014

39 MOTION to Expedite , Motion to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven.Responses due by 6/5/2014 (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
40 ORDER denying without prejudice 39 Motion to Expedite Motion to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/19/2014. (eef) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
41 NOTICE of Subsequently Decided Authority by Jeffrey Addy, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth Cloninger, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, Subsequently Decided Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Baskin v. Bogan, # 2 Exhibit Latta v. Otter, # 3 Exhibit Evans v. Utah, # 4 Exhibit Geiger v. Kitzhaber, # 5 Exhibit Whitewood v. Wolf)(Sussman, Jacob) Modified on 5/27/2014 (tmg). (Entered: 05/23/2014)
42 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 32 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: 1 Complaint,, , 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint, 30 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: 1 Complaint,, , 34 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: 1 Complaint,, and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 35 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint and to Extend Time to Respond to Motion for Preliminary Injunction , 37 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer complaint by Jeffrey Addy, Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Elizabeth Cloninger, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward.Responses due by 6/9/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sussman, Jacob). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/23/2014)
43 ORDER granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Responses due by 6/10/2014; and until 6/23/2014 to file an Answer and/or Motions in response to Plaintiff's Compaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/23/2014. (tmg) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven.Responses due by 6/13/2014 (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/27/2014)
45 MEMORANDUM in Support re 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
46 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Laura M. Riddick (Askew, Roger) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
47 MOTION to Stay by Laura M. Riddick.Responses due by 6/13/2014 (Askew, Roger). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 05/27/2014)
48 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF in Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings by Laura M. Riddick re: 47 Motion to Stay (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Unpublished Decision− Hickey v. Baxter)(Askew, Roger) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
49 ORDER denying as moot 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 and 37 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/27/2014. (eef) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
50 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Wayne Nixon (Koch, Richard) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 28 of 36

06/02/2014 06/03/2014
06/03/2014
06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/04/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014

51 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Tonia Hampton (Anderson, Philip) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
52 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Carol Taylor, Robin Tanner, Joanne Marinaro, Joseph Hoffman, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joel Blady, Cathy Fry, Shauna Bragan, Betty Mack, Kay Diane Ansley, Catherine McGaughey, Kathleen Smith, Jonathan Freirich, Nancy Ellett Allison, Nancy E. Petty, Elizabeth Cloninger, Stacy Maloney, Mark Ward, Nathan King, Jeffrey Addy, Nancy Kraft, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Thomas Murphy, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Amy Jacks Dean, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Milly Morrow, Russ Dean, Eric M. Solomon, Ari N. Margolis, Lucy H.F. Dinner.(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
53 Appendix by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. Appendix re: 52 Amended Complaint,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of General Synod of The United Church of Christ, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Central Conference of American Rabbis, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Alliance of Baptists, Inc., # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Joseph Hoffman, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Nancy Allison, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Nathan King, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Nancy Kraft, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of Rabbi Jonathan Freirich, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Robin Tanner, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Mark Ward, # 12 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Dr. Nancy E. Petty, # 13 Exhibit Declaration of The Very Reverend Todd Donatelli, # 14 Exhibit Declaration of The Rev. Canon Thomas Murphy, # 15 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Milly Morrow, # 16 Exhibit Declaration of Rabbi Lucy H.F. Dinner, # 17 Exhibit Declaration of Rabbi Ari N. Margolis, # 18 Exhibit Declaration of Rabbi Ariel Edery, # 19 Exhibit Declaration of Rabbi Eric M. Solomon, # 20 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Russ Dean, # 21 Exhibit Declaration of Rev. Amy Jacks Dean, # 22 Exhibit Declaration of Kay Diane Ansley, # 23 Exhibit Declaration of Catherine "Cathy" McGaughey, # 24 Exhibit Declaration of Elizabeth "Lisa" Cloninger, # 25 Exhibit Declaration of Kathleen Smith, # 26 Exhibit Declaration of Shauna Bragan, # 27 Exhibit Declaration of Stacy Maloney, # 28 Exhibit Declaration of Cathy Fry, # 29 Exhibit Declaration of Joanne Marinaro, # 30 Exhibit Declaration of Joel Blady, # 31 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey Addy, # 32 Exhibit Declaration of Betty Mack, # 33 Exhibit Declaration of Carol Taylor)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
54 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Central Conference of American Rabbis (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
55 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Alliance of Baptists, Inc. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
56 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
57 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Drew Reisinger (Gottschalk, Tikkun) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
58 RESPONSE to Motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Laura M. Riddick. Replies due by 6/20/2014 (Askew, Roger) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
59 RESPONSE to Motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Tonia Hampton. Replies due by 6/20/2014 (Anderson, Philip) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
60 DOCUMENT DELETED Duplicate see document 61 Modified on 6/11/2014 (ssh). (Entered: 06/10/2014)
61 MOTION to Stay by Wayne Nixon.Responses due by 6/27/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Koch, Richard). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 06/10/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 29 of 36

06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/13/2014
06/13/2014
06/16/2014
06/18/2014 06/18/2014 06/20/2014

62 RESPONSE to Motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Wayne Nixon. Replies due by 6/20/2014 (Koch, Richard) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
63 NOTICE of intent not to file reply by Drew Reisinger by Drew Reisinger. (Gottschalk, Tikkun) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Response to Plaintiffs' Motion by J. David Granberry. Replies due by 6/20/2014 (Gibson, Ronald) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
65 RESPONSE in Opposition re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
66 RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, 61 MOTION to Stay , 47 MOTION to Stay by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. Replies due by 6/23/2014 (Largess, S.) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
67 NOTICE by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 66 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, of Filing of Affidavit (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Largess, S.) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
68 NOTICE by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, Subsequently Decided Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Wolf v. Walker)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
69 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: 52 Amended Complaint,, by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh 1: McCrory v. State Order, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Extension)(Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga). Motions referred to David Keesler. (Entered: 06/18/2014)
70 ORDER granting 69 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 52 Amended Complaint. All Defendants shall have up to and including ten (10) days from the Courts ruling on the Motions To Stay (Document Nos. 44, 47, 61) to file a response to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Document No. 52). Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 6/18/2014. (eef) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
71 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon,

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 30 of 36

Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Post−Windsor Decisions)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

06/23/2014

72 REPLY to Response to Motion re 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh 1, # 2 Exhibit Exh 2, # 3 Exhibit Exh 3, # 4 Exhibit Exh 4)(Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

06/23/2014

73 MOTION Oral Argument re 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, 61 MOTION to Stay , 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 47 MOTION to Stay by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward.Responses due by 7/10/2014 (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

06/25/2014

74 NOTICE by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, Subsequently Decided Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Kitchen v. Herbert (10th Cir.), # 2 Exhibit Baskin v. Bogan)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/25/2014)

06/26/2014

Motion referred to David Keesler.: 73 MOTION Oral Argument re 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, 61 MOTION to Stay , 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 47 MOTION to Stay (eef) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

06/26/2014

75 ORDER denying without prejudice 73 Motion Oral Argument re 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, 61 MOTION to Stay, 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 47 MOTION to Stay; FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Riddick and Defendant Nixon shall file reply briefs in support of their motions to stay proceedings on or before July 1, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 6/26/2014. (eef) Modified text on 6/26/2014 (eef). (Entered: 06/26/2014)

07/01/2014 76 REPLY to Response to Motion re 47 MOTION to Stay by Laura M. Riddick. (Askew, Roger) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/01/2014 77 Reply to Response to Motion re 61 MOTION to Stay by Wayne Nixon. (Koch, Richard) Modified text on 7/1/2014 (eef). (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/01/2014

78 MOTION Oral Argument re 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, 61 MOTION to Stay , 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 47 MOTION to Stay by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward.Responses due by 7/18/2014 (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/01/2014

79 Pro Se MOTION to Intervene by Chris Sevier. Responses due by 7/18/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Proposed Intervening Complaint, # 3 Declaration of Chris Sevier, # 4 Exhibit)(eef). Modified on 7/21/2014 to remove

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 31 of 36

referral (tmg). (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/01/2014 80 Pro Se MOTION to Have ECF Filing Access by Chris Sevier.Responses due by 7/18/2014 (eef) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/07/2014

81 RESPONSE in Opposition re 79 MOTION to Intervene filed by consent of all parties by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Chris Sevier, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. Replies due by 7/17/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order of Tennessee Supreme Court)(Largess, S.) (Entered: 07/07/2014)

07/08/2014

82 Miscellaneous Filing by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Chris Sevier, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. re: 81 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, Amended Certificate of Service for Doc 81 to Show Service by Mail upon Chris Sevier (Largess, S.) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/11/2014

83 NOTICE by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, Subsequently Decided Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Brinkman v. Long)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 07/11/2014)

07/17/2014 84 REPLY to Response to Motion re 79 MOTION to Intervene by Chris Sevier. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(eef) (Entered: 07/18/2014)

07/18/2014

85 RESPONSE to Motion re 78 MOTION Oral Argument re 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, 61 MOTION to Stay , 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 47 MOTION t by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. Replies due by 7/28/2014 (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 07/18/2014)

07/18/2014

86 NOTICE by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, Subsequently Decided Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bishop v. Smith, # 2 Exhibit Huntsman v. Heavilin)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 07/18/2014)

07/24/2014

87 NOTICE by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 32 of 36

08/01/2014 08/12/2014 08/12/2014 08/21/2014 08/25/2014 09/08/2014
09/08/2014
09/08/2014

McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, Subsequently Decided Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Burns v. Hickenlooper, # 2 Exhibit Love v. Beshear)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
Case reassigned to District Judge Martin Reidinger and Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell. District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr, Magistrate Judge David Keesler no longer assigned to the case. Motions referred to Dennis Howell: 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 44 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, 47 MOTION to Stay, 61 MOTION to Stay, 78 MOTION Oral Argument, 79 MOTION to Intervene, 80 MOTION to Have ECF Filing Access. This is your only notice − you will not receive a separate document. Pro se litigant served by US Mail.(jde). (Entered: 08/01/2014)
88 ORDER denying 79 Motion to Intervene and 80 Motion to have ECF Filing Access. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 08/12/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
89 ORDER granting [44, 47, 61] Motions to Stay; denying 78 Motion for Oral Argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 08/12/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
90 MOTION for Reconsideration re 88 Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Chris Sevier.Responses due by 9/8/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(jlk). Motions referred to Dennis Howell. (Entered: 08/21/2014)
91 ORDER re 90 MOTION for Reconsideration re 88 Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, ORDERED that this matter is hereby STAYED pending the Supreme Courts disposition of Bostic, FURTHER ORDERED that proposed intervenor Chris Seviers Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 90] shall be HELD IN ABEYANCE until the stay is lifted. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 08/23/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
92 NOTICE by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward Notice of Attorney General Cooper's Position (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U.S.D.J. Osteen's Order, # 2 Exhibit A.G. Cooper's Brief)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 91 Order, by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward.Responses due by 9/25/2014 (Sussman, Jacob). Motions referred to Dennis Howell. (Entered: 09/08/2014)
94 MEMORANDUM in Support re 93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 91 Order, by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 33 of 36

09/24/2014 09/24/2014 09/24/2014 09/25/2014 09/26/2014 10/07/2014 10/07/2014
10/07/2014
10/08/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014

95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 91 Order, by J. David Granberry. Replies due by 10/6/2014 (Adden, Robert) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
96 RESPONSE in Opposition re 93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 91 Order, by Laura M. Riddick. Replies due by 10/6/2014 (Askew, Roger) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
97 RESPONSE to Motion re 93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 91 Order, by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. Replies due by 10/6/2014 (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
98 RESPONSE to Motion re 93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 91 Order, by Tonia Hampton. Replies due by 10/6/2014 (Anderson, Philip) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
99 RESPONSE in Opposition by Wayne Nixon. (Koch, Richard) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
100 STATUS REPORT by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
101 MOTION to Lift Stay re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 91 Order, , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward.Responses due by 10/24/2014 (Sussman, Jacob). Motions referred to Dennis Howell. (Entered: 10/07/2014)
102 MEMORANDUM in Support re 101 MOTION to Lift Stay re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 91 Order, by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
103 RESPONSE to Motion re 101 MOTION to Lift Stay re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 91 Order, by J. David Granberry. Replies due by 10/20/2014 (Adden, Robert) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
Case reassigned to District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. District Judge Martin Reidinger no longer assigned to the case. This is your only notice − you will not receive a separate document.(thh) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
104 ANSWER to 52 Amended Complaint,, by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven.(Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
105 RESPONSE to Motion re 101 MOTION to Lift Stay re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 91 Order, , 93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 91 Order, by Laura M. Riddick. Replies due by 10/20/2014 (Askew, Roger) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
106 RESPONSE to Motion re 101 MOTION to Lift Stay re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 91 Order, by Tonia Hampton. Replies due by 10/20/2014 (Anderson, Philip) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
107 MOTION to Intervene by Thom Tillis, Phil Berger. Responses due by 10/27/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Potter, Robert). Motions referred to Dennis Howell. (Entered: 10/09/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 34 of 36

10/09/2014 108 MEMORANDUM in Support re 107 MOTION to Intervene by Thom Tillis, Phil Berger. (Potter, Robert) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

10/09/2014 109 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Thom Tillis, Phil Berger. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Potter, Robert). Motions referred to Dennis Howell. (Entered: 10/09/2014)

10/10/2014 110 REPLY to Response to Motion re 93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 91 Order, Re; responses of Granberry, Hampton and Riddick by General Synod of The United Church of Christ. (Largess, S.) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014 111 Attachment by General Synod of The United Church of Christ. Attachment to 110 Reply to Response to Motion (Largess, S.) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014 112 Attachment by General Synod of The United Church of Christ. Attachment to 110 Reply to Response to Motion to correct 111 (Largess, S.) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014 113 RESPONSE to Motion re 101 MOTION to Lift Stay re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 91 Order, by Drew Reisinger. Replies due by 10/20/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Drew Reisinger)(Gottschalk, Tikkun) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014

114 Consent MOTION to Intervene , Consent MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' 1st Amendment Claims at the time judgment is entered on the Fourteenth Amendment claims by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. Responses due by 10/27/2014 (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga). Motions referred to Dennis Howell. (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014

115 RESPONSE in Opposition re 107 MOTION to Intervene by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. Replies due by 10/20/2014 (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014

116 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. Responses due by 10/27/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sussman, Jacob). Motions referred to Dennis Howell. (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014

117 MEMORANDUM in Support re 116 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Jeffrey Addy, Alliance of Baptists, Inc., Nancy Ellett Allison, Kay Diane Ansley, Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Joel Blady, Shauna Bragan, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Elizabeth Cloninger, Amy Jacks Dean, Russ Dean, Lucy H.F. Dinner, Todd Donatelli, Ariel Edery, Jonathan Freirich, Cathy Fry, General Synod of The United Church of Christ, Joseph Hoffman, Nathan King, Nancy Kraft, Betty Mack, Stacy Maloney, Ari N. Margolis, Joanne Marinaro, Catherine McGaughey, Milly Morrow, Thomas Murphy, Nancy E. Petty, Kathleen Smith, Eric M. Solomon, Robin Tanner, Carol Taylor, Mark Ward. (Sussman, Jacob) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014

118 RESPONSE to Motion re 116 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Roy Cooper, Bradley Greenway, Ned Mangum, Ronald L. Moore, Andrew Murray, Roxann Vaneekhoven. Replies due by 10/20/2014 (Vysotskaya de Brito, Olga) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014 119 ORDER granting 114 Motion to Intervene. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 10/10/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 35 of 36

10/10/2014 10/10/2014
10/10/2014 10/11/2014 11/07/2014
11/07/2014 11/14/2014 12/08/2014 08/12/2015 08/12/2015

120 ORDER denying 107 Motion to Intervene. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 10/10/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
121 ORDER GRANTING 114 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amendment Claims, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; the court's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED; all other pending motions are terminated as moot. Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing such laws to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender, prohibit recognition of same−sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or seek to punish in any way clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same−sex couples. With the exception of retaining such jurisdiction as may be necessary to enforce such injunction, this action is otherwise DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 10/10/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
122 CLERK'S JUDGMENT is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's Order dated 10/10/2014. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns on 10/10/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
123 NOTICE of Appearance by John C. Eastman on behalf of Thom Tillis, Phil Berger (Eastman, John) (Entered: 10/11/2014)
124 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 122 Clerk's Judgment, 120 Order on Motion to Intervene, 121 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, by Thom Tillis. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0419−2478321. Use this link www.ca4.uscourts.gov to retrieve 4th Circuit case opening documents, i.e. Appearance of Counsel, Docketing Statement, Disclosure Statement, and Transcript Order Form. Note: Your Transcript Order Form must be served on the District Court as well as the Circuit Court. (Potter, Robert) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
125 Transmission of Notice of Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 124 Notice of Appeal (mga) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
126 USCA Case Number 14−2225 for 124 Notice of Appeal,, USCA Case Manager: Barbara Rowe. (chh) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
127 ORDER of USCA as to 124 Notice of Appeal; rescinding briefing schedules, consolidating case 14−2228, 14−2230, 14−2278, 14−2279 with 14−2225 (L). (tmg) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
128 ORDER of USCA granting motion to dismiss pursuant to FRAP 42(b)as to 124 Notice of Appeal,, (chh) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
129 Rule 42(b)MANDATE of USCA as to 124 Notice of Appeal,, (chh) (Entered: 08/12/2015)

Case: 3:14-cv-213 As of: 01/12/2019 02:15 PM EST 36 of 36

 
 MEMORANDUM

TO:

Superior Court Judges

Chief District Court Judges

District Court Judges

Clerks of Superior Court

Magistrates

FROM:

Pamela Weaver Best

DATE:

October 14, 2014

SUBJECT: Same-Sex Marriages

Legal and Legislative Services Division
Pamela Weaver Best
General Counsel
PO Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602 T 919 890-1300 F 919 890-1914

Effective October 10, 2014, same-sex marriages are permitted and recognized in North Carolina in accordance with the courts’ decisions in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____, 2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014) and the October 10, 2014, order of Judge Max Cogburn in General Synod of the United Church of Christ, et al. v. Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds for Buncombe County, et al. Judge Cogburn found “Article XIV, Section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution, North Carolina General Statute § 51-1 et seq., and any other source of state law that operates to deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the State of North Carolina, … unconstitutional as they violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
As a result of these court decisions, we have received a number of questions from court officials regarding magistrates who refuse to marry same-sex couples. What follows are the questions and answers.
Question 1: May a magistrate who conducts other marriages refuse to marry a same-sex couple for whom a marriage license has been issued by the Register of Deeds?
Answer: No. Under the ruling now binding upon the State of North Carolina, to refuse to do so violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Before entering upon the office of magistrate, every magistrate is required to take an oath. That is a requirement imposed by Article IV, Sec. 7 of the North Carolina Constitution which states:
North Carolina Judicial Center, 901 Corporate Center Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607

Same-Sex Marriages October 14, 2014 Page 2
Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath: I, ________________________, do solemnly swear that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as Magistrate, so help me God. [N.C. Const., Art. IV, sec.7]
Performing marriage ceremonies is a ministerial act authorized as an official “additional power” of magistrates under G.S. 7A-292(9). That provision references the marriage qualification provisions in Chapter 51.
If a valid marriage license issued under G.S. 51-6 is presented, it is a statutory duty of the magistrate to conduct the marriage between the persons named in the license in the same manner as the magistrate would conduct any other marriage. A failure to do so would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution under the federal ruling, and would constitute a violation of the oath and a failure to perform a duty of the office.
For these reasons, all magistrates must treat same-sex marriages for which a marriage license has been issued by the Register of Deeds the same way that marriages between a man and a woman are scheduled and conducted.
Question 2: What if a magistrate refuses to perform same-sex marriages?
Answer: If a magistrate refuses to discharge the duties of his or her office, including a refusal to perform a marriage of a same-sex couple, that refusal is grounds for suspension or removal from office, as well as, potential criminal charges. If any magistrate “… shall willfully omit, neglect or refuse to discharge any of the duties of his office … he shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.” G.S. 14-230. Our case law makes clear that this criminal provision remains enforceable in addition to the procedures for suspension and removal under G.S. 7A-173.
A magistrate “…may be suspended from performing the duties of his office by the chief district judge of the district court district in which his county is located, or removed from office by the senior regular resident superior court judge of, or any regular superior court judge holding court in, the district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A-41.1(a) in which the county is located. Grounds for suspension or removal are the same as for a judge of the General Court of Justice.” G.S. 7A173(a). Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct are applicable here.
Canon 2 A judge should avoid impropriety in all the judge’s activities. A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Same-Sex Marriages October 14, 2014 Page 3

Canon 3 A judge should perform the duties of the judge’s office impartially and diligently.
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s other activities. The judge’s judicial duties include all the duties of the judge’s office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply. A. Adjudicative responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

Question 3: Does the reason the magistrate refuses to perform the marriage change the matter?

Answer: No.

Question 4: Will the Attorney General represent a magistrate who refuses to marry a same-sex couple if the magistrate faces civil or criminal liability or removal for the refusal to marry the samesex couple?

Answer:

Probably not. G.S. 143-300.4(a) sets out the four situations when the Attorney

General shall refuse to provide representation to an employee:

1. If the employee’s act or omission was not within the scope and course of the

employee’s employment as a State employee; or,

2. If the employee failed to act because of actual fraud, corruption, or actual

malice; or,

3. If defense of the action on the part of the state would create a conflict of

interest between the State and the employee; or,

4. If defense of the action would not be in the best interests of the State.

Further, the Attorney General does not represent judicial officials in removal proceedings.

Question 5: A magistrate has received a call from a citizen, which threatened the magistrate if he or she performs same-sex marriages. What remedy does a magistrate have if the magistrate is threatened for discharging their duties in accordance with the law?

Answer: Threats against magistrates may be punished as Class I felonies under G.S. 14-16.7. If you are threatened by any individual, immediately contact law enforcement and notify your Chief District Court Judge, and Amy Funderburk or Pamela Weaver Best at the Administrative Office of the Courts.

If you have any other questions, please contact me at Pamela.w.best@nccourts.org or 919.890.1304.