IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER INNISS and SHELTON STROMAN; RAYSHAWN CHANDLER and AVERY CHANDLER; MICHAEL BISHOP and JOHNNY SHANE THOMAS; and JENNIFER SISSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEBORAH ADERHOLD, in her official capacity as State Registrar and Director of Vital Records; BROOK DAVIDSON, in her official capacity as Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court; and the Honorable Judge PINKIE TOOMER, in her official capacity as Judge of Fulton County Probate Court,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. ______________
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
CLASS ACTION

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

INTRODUCTION 1. Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman, RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler, Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas, and Jennifer Sisson bring this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of themselves and the proposed Plaintiff Class for the violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution caused by the State of Georgia’s exclusion of same-sex couples from (1) the freedom to marry and (2) the recognition of lawful marriages entered in other jurisdictions. 2. The history of the United States has been defined by the ability of each succeeding generation to recognize that social, economic, political, religious, and historical norms do not define our unalienable rights. As adopted in 1789, the Constitution of the United States permitted slavery, and allowed states to deny the majority of our adult citizens the right to vote, to criminalize inter-racial marriage, and to criminalize private consensual intimacy. But in time, the American ideal of equality and liberty demanded that our government move past cultural and majority oppressions, however long-standing, in order to secure and fulfill the individual rights of all citizens. 3. With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, our Constitution provided not only a more expansive definition of citizenship, but also
1

the framework for assuring our Founders’ “self-evident” truth of liberty and equality: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
4. Guided by this framework, the United States Supreme Court has vindicated the right to marry as “fundamental” and one of the “basic civil rights of man.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Its decisions have made clear that “the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 393 (1978).
5. By this Complaint, Named Plaintiffs seek to enforce these rights and liberties. They ask this Court to hold that the State of Georgia cannot condition marriage on the sex of spouses.
6. Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman and Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas are loving, committed samesex couples who seek the right to marry in the State of Georgia.
2

7. Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler and Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, a recent widow, are individuals who lawfully married a same-sex spouse outside the State of Georgia, but who reside in the State and seek its respect for and recognition of their marriages.
8. Named Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class defined in Section IV below (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
9. Marriage plays a unique role in our society as the celebration and hallmark of a couple’s commitment to build family life together. It confers dignity, status, rights, and responsibilities. Plaintiffs have formed or want to form enduring bonds worthy of the respect that the State affords to different-sex couples through marriage. Yet the State has deprived lesbian and gay Georgians of the right to marry their chosen partners and declines to recognize lawful marriages entered in other jurisdictions based on sexual orientation and sex. The State’s discriminatory “marriage bans” are enshrined in Georgia statutes and in Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, which limits marriage to couples composed “of man and woman.”
10. The marriage bans inflict serious and irreparable harms upon samesex couples and their children that cannot be explained by reference to legitimate governmental interests.
3

11. Same-sex couples are identical to different-sex couples in all characteristics relevant to marriage.
12. Same-sex couples make the same commitment to each other as different-sex couples. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples fall in love, build their lives together, plan their futures together, and hope to grow old together. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples support each other emotionally and financially, and take care of each other when faced with injury or illness – as, for example, Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson did for her terminally ill spouse, Pamela Drenner.
13. Same-sex couples seek to marry for the same emotional and romantic reasons and the same reasons of dignity as different-sex spouses. They desire to declare their love and commitment before their families, friends, and community, and to obtain the status, security, protections, and responsibilities of marriage.
14. Like some different-sex couples, some same-sex couples, including some Named Plaintiffs, are parents raising children together. These couples and their children are equally worthy of the tangible rights and responsibilities, as well as the respect, dignity, and legitimacy, that access to marriage confers on differentsex couples and their children. For the many children born to or being raised by
4

same-sex couples, the tangible resources and societal esteem that marriage confers are no less necessary and precious than for children of different-sex couples.
15. Our courts and our society have discarded, one by one, marriage laws that violated the United States Constitution’s mandate of equality and liberty, such as anti-miscegenation laws and laws that denied married women independence and the right to make their own decisions. History teaches us that the vitality of marriage does not depend on maintaining discriminatory laws – and that eliminating unconstitutional restrictions on marriage has enhanced the institution. Indeed, in 17 states and the District of Columbia, same-sex couples are legally marrying and the institution of marriage continues to thrive.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the subject matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 17. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because all Defendants reside within the Northern District of Georgia and a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place in this District. 18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled in the State of Georgia.
5

19. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
II. PARTIES A. Named Plaintiffs
Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman 20. Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss, age 39, and Shelton Stroman, age 42, are a same-sex male couple residing in Snellville, Georgia. Chris is a veterinarian and the Chief of Staff at the Banfield Pet Hospital in Loganville, Georgia. Shelton is manager of the Snellville Pet Resort, a business the couple started together. 21. Chris and Shelton met through a mutual friend in 2001, and have been a loving and committed couple for 13 years. They are raising a 9-year-son, J.S.I., who is the highlight of their lives. More than a decade ago, Chris proposed marriage to Shelton on a trip to celebrate Shelton’s birthday. Chris did not know where or how they could marry, but he wanted to show Shelton that he was committed to being with him forever. Shelton had fallen in love with Chris’s strength, compassion, and capacity for unconditional love, and he accepted the proposal, even though the men could not marry in their home state of Georgia.
6

22. Chris and Shelton decided to live together as a couple and as a family. Their world changed when they adopted J.S.I. in 2004. Today, J.S.I. is a happy, busy third-grader. He is routinely on the honor roll at school, has a green belt in tae kwon do, and is eager to play basketball and football too.
23. Chris and Shelton want to marry for several reasons, including to be recognized as a loving and committed couple without having to explain their relationship to others. As parents, they want to be recognized as a family equal to others. J.S.I. is old enough to understand that his parents are not married, and he struggles to understand why. J.S.I. wants Chris and Shelton to be married like many of his friends’ parents. J.S.I. has been to weddings, and wants to participate in Chris and Shelton’s wedding. Chris and Shelton find it painful that they cannot fulfill his wish.
24. Because Shelton doesn’t share J.S.I.’s last name, staff at J.S.I.’s school often ask if he is J.S.I.’s uncle. The same confusion occurs whenever they see a new dentist or doctor or complete family-related forms. The couple has to modify forms to identify their relationship to their son and once were asked if they had made a mistake. If Chris and Shelton were married and recognized as a family unit, this kind of confusion would be reduced or eliminated.
7

25. Shelton tried to mitigate the situation by filing a petition to change his last name. The judge berated him in open court for seeking to share a last name with another man and trying to “defeat” the court. Shelton explained that he also wanted to change his last name to match that of his son, but the judge was unmoved, and ordered him to leave the courtroom. As difficult as this experience was for Shelton, he and Chris are even more concerned that J.S.I. too will experience similar societal messages of disapproval.
RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler 26. Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler, age 29, and Avery Chandler, age 30, are a same-sex female couple residing in Jonesboro, Georgia. Avery enlisted as a U.S. Army reservist in 2008 and was recently promoted to Sergeant. In July 2014, she will deploy to Kuwait. In civilian life, Avery works as a fulltime Police Officer for the Atlanta Police Department (“APD”) – and, in addition, serves as a member of the APD’s Honor Guard, which presents the colors at functions in precision drill and helps bury the police force’s fallen, including carrying the deceased officer’s casket and presenting a flag to the family. Avery’s spouse, RayShawn, is also an APD Police Officer. Her duties include mentoring at-risk youth during visits to their schools and homes, and monitoring their disciplinary records and living circumstances. Avery and RayShawn are both
8

members of Volunteer! Decatur, through which they volunteer for community events, including book and arts festivals.
27. RayShawn and Avery met in 2010 through the Atlanta Police Academy, and have been a loving and devoted couple for more than three years. In 2013, Avery proposed to RayShawn on April 12 – the birthday of RayShawn’s grandmother, who was a central figure in RayShawn’s life before she passed. RayShawn came downstairs that evening to find a digital picture frame Avery had programmed with pictures of them as a couple, RayShawn’s grandmother, and finally, an engagement ring. Avery, on bended knee, offered RayShawn the ring and asked RayShawn to marry her.
28. The couple wanted a lawful marriage, which Georgia would not allow. RayShawn and Avery chose Connecticut because they wanted to marry in a state neither had visited before – and to see a lighthouse together. They were married in Elizabeth Park in West Hartford, Connecticut, on June 26, 2013, before a handful of close friends, and later had a ceremony and reception in Atlanta to celebrate with their friends and family.
29. Having their marriage recognized in their home state of Georgia is important to RayShawn and Avery, especially now that they are planning for children, through their efforts for RayShawn to become pregnant through artificial
9

insemination. The State’s refusal to recognize their marriage burdens their family because Avery cannot be recognized on the birth certificate as the other parent of their children. Avery and RayShawn also worry about the stigma their children will experience because of Georgia’s refusal to recognize their marriage.
30. Both RayShawn and Avery serve their community as law enforcement officers, and Avery also serves her country as a reservist. These are difficult and dangerous jobs. If, for example, Avery were killed in the line of duty as a Police Officer, RayShawn and their hoped-for children (unlike different-sex spouses and their children) would not qualify for State survivor’s benefits.
Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas 31. Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop, age 50, and Johnny Shane Thomas (“Shane”), age 44, are a same-sex male couple residing in Atlanta, Georgia. Michael is General Counsel for AT&T Intellectual Property Corporation, and Shane is a realtor who served in the Air National Guard. Shane serves on the board of First Presbyterian Preschool, where their children attend school. Michael is the incoming President of the Atlanta Intellectual Property Inn of Court, Chair of the Atlanta Advisory Council for Savannah College of Art and Design in Atlanta, and a member of the Board of Trustees for the Atlanta Preservation Center.
10

32. Michael and Shane met in 2006 at a birthday party, and have been a loving, committed couple for over seven years. They have welcomed two children into their family, including their nearly five-year-old son, T.A.B., and their threeand-a-half-year-old daughter, M.G.B. Their lives revolve around their children. The couple wakes every day to two energetic children running around the house, and, like other parents, they spend the morning getting their children ready and off to school. Michael and Shane take T.A.B. and M.G.B. to birthday parties at Chuck E. Cheese, to Piedmont Park and the Atlanta Botanical Gardens, to Saint Luke’s Episcopal Church, to the beach, and – because Michael is a history buff – to historical sites like President Roosevelt’s home in Warm Springs, Georgia. Michael and Shane tell their children, “We adopted you because we love you so much,” and their son once answered, “No, I adopted you.”
33. Michael and Shane want to marry to express their devotion to each other and to obtain the dignity and legitimacy of marriage for their children. Michael and Shane worry that, as T.A.B. and M.G.B. get older, they will realize that their friends’ parents are married, while the law treats their parents as “less than.” Michael and Shane do not want their children to carry a sense of uncertainty, inferiority, or shame because they know their parents cannot secure their relationship through marriage. Michael and Shane also worry about what
11

might happen in the event of a medical emergency, especially if their relationship to the children is questioned. Although they carry their children’s adoption papers and advanced medical directives when they travel, they long for the day when taking such steps is unnecessary, and their family bonds are recognized.
Jennifer Sisson 34. Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, age 34, recently lost the love of her life when her spouse, Pamela Drenner, age 49, passed away after a long battle with ovarian cancer. Although Jennifer and Pam knew their home state of Georgia would not recognize their marriage, they wanted to memorialize their commitment and love for each other. They were married on Valentine’s Day 2013 in New York at City Hall, surrounded by a few cherished friends and family members. 35. Pam was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2008, but had undergone successful treatment. Jennifer knew that Pam could become sick again, and believed strongly in the commitment she made to love and care for Pam in sickness and in health. 36. In April 2013, two months after the couple married, tumors appeared again on Pam’s scans. Her health seriously declined in November 2013. Jennifer took a leave of absence from her work with Delta Airlines to become Pam’s fulltime caretaker.
12

37. Aside from once-weekly visits from a nurse, Jennifer took care of almost everything for Pam. She administered Pam’s medication, fluids, and nutrition through intravenous (“IV”) lines. She helped Pam go to the bathroom, and bathed and dressed her. By February 2014, Pam began to require around-theclock care. During the last weeks of her life, Pam had a serious infection that impaired her judgment, causing her at one point to attempt to cut her IV lines. Jennifer kept nearly constant vigil at Pam’s side to ensure she remained safe and her every need was met.
38. Pam passed away at home on March 1, 2014, surrounded by her children, Jennifer, and a hospice nurse.
39. When Jennifer thinks about her marriage to Pam, and how to honor her memory, she wants to shout their love from the rooftops. But only hours after Pam’s death, the State refused to recognize their marriage on the final document memorializing Pam’s existence – her death certificate.
40. The day after Pam’s death, Jennifer and Pam’s 18-year-old son went to the funeral home to make arrangements and review the information to be submitted to the State for the death certificate. The funeral home informed Jennifer that, under Georgia law, the only options she could choose for Pam’s marital status were “never married,” “widowed,” or “divorced.” Jennifer burst into
13

tears, and Pam’s son – who was proud of the couple’s marriage – was stunned and upset. When Jennifer received the death certificate from the State, it listed Pam as “never married.” Jennifer was listed only as an “informant” and “partner,” and the space for Pam’s spouse was left blank. Defendant Deborah Aderhold signed the death certificate as the State Registrar.
41. For Jennifer, this is a painful negation of her loving marriage to Pam and their unshakeable devotion to each other through to the last moments of Pam’s life. Jennifer’s claim is simple and profound: she wishes to have a death certificate that reflects her marriage to Pam, rather than one that erases their legal bond together as spouses.
B. Defendants 42. Defendant Deborah Aderhold is sued in her official capacity as State Registrar and Director of Vital Records. As State Registrar, Ms. Aderhold is responsible for the State Office of Vital Records and vital records registration system. This includes the registration, collection, preservation, amendment, and certification of vital records, including certificates of marriage, birth, and death. Ms. Aderhold’s statutory duties also include directing, supervising, and issuing instructions for administration and staff activities of the State Office of Vital Records, and promoting uniformity of policy and procedures throughout the State
14

in these matters. Ms. Aderhold also is required to prescribe, furnish, and distribute forms relating to vital records, including, upon information and belief, forms that express and enforce the State’s marriage bans for purposes of marriage, birth, and death certificates. Ms. Aderhold and her designees are also authorized to determine whether amendments to a death certificate may be made, including the amendment Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson would request if Georgia law acknowledged her marriage to her recently-deceased spouse. Ms. Aderhold must ensure compliance through all of these functions with relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from marriage and from having lawful out-of-state marriages recognized. She is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
43. Defendant Brook Davidson is sued in her official capacity as Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court. Ms. Davidson’s statutory duties include issuing marriage licenses. Ms. Davidson must ensure compliance through this function with relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. She is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
15

44. The Honorable Judge Pinkie Toomer is sued in her official capacity as Judge of Fulton County Probate Court. Judge Toomer’s statutory duties include issuing marriage licenses. Judge Toomer must ensure compliance through this function with relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. She is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
45. Defendants, through their respective duties and obligations, are among those responsible for enforcing Georgia’s marriage bans. Each Defendant – and those state, county, and municipal employees subject to their direction, supervision, and control – intentionally performed, participated in, aided, or abetted in some manner the enforcement of the marriage bans; proximately caused harm to Plaintiffs in doing so; and will continue to injure Plaintiffs irreparably if not enjoined.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 46. Plaintiffs are residents of Georgia who experience the same joys and challenges of family life as their heterosexual neighbors, co-workers, and other community members who may marry under Georgia law or whose lawful out-ofstate marriages are recognized by Georgia. Plaintiffs are productive, contributing citizens who support their families and nurture their children, but the State of
16

Georgia does not afford them the legal protections, dignity, and respect provided to other families through access to the status of marriage. By excluding Plaintiffs from marriage and from recognition of their lawful out-of-state marriages, the State subjects Plaintiffs to legal vulnerability, unequal financial burdens, and related stress, while depriving them and their children of equal dignity and security. The marriage bans send a purposeful message that the State views lesbians and gay men and their children as second-class members of society who do not deserve the same legal sanction, legal protection, respect, support, responsibilities, and obligations as different-sex spouses and their families.
A. Named Plaintiffs’ Attempts To Marry And Lawful Marriages In Other Jurisdictions
47. Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman and Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas want to marry in Georgia. They are legally qualified to marry under Georgia law, but for the fact that they are the same sex. They are of sound mind and capable of consent. They are over the age of 18. They have no living spouse of a previous undissolved marriage. They are not related to their prospective spouses within the prohibited degrees of blood or marriage. They are willing to provide the information to receive a marriage license and to pay the required fee. They are able and eager to assume the responsibilities of marriage.
17

48. On April 17, 2014, Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman appeared in person at the Gwinnett County Probate Court to apply for a marriage license. An agent or employee of Defendant Brook Davidson refused their application because they are the same sex.
49. On April 10, 2014, Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas appeared in person at the Fulton County Probate Court to apply for a marriage license. On April 14, 2014, they received an order of the Probate Court of Fulton County denying their marriage license because they are the same sex, citing Art. I, Section IV, para. 1 of the Georgia Constitution and O.C.G.A. § 19-3-30(b)(1).
50. Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler were legally married in Connecticut on June 26, 2013. The State of Georgia would recognize them as married but for the fact that they are the same sex.
51. Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson and her late spouse Pamela Drenner were legally married in New York on February 14, 2013. The State of Georgia would recognize Jennifer’s marriage to Pam but for the fact they were the same sex.
B. The Plaintiff Class 52. Named Plaintiffs propose to represent a Class consisting of all Georgia residents who are unmarried same-sex couples and all Georgia residents
18

who have lawfully married a same-sex spouse in another jurisdiction (see Paragraph 76).
53. This Class reflects the rich diversity of the State. Class members come from all walks of life, and include, by way of example, people who risk their lives daily to serve as police officers; people who serve or have served the State and their country as members of the armed forces; doctors, nurses, social workers, attorneys, government officials and employees, accountants, artists, engineers, sales people, office workers, factory workers, small business owners, professors, students, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, stay-at-home parents, homemakers, retirees, and members of diverse faith communities. Many Class members are raising children together.
54. Because of the State’s marriage bans, each Class member is either unable to marry a same-sex partner in Georgia or denied recognition of her or his lawful out-of-state marriage to a same-sex spouse.
C. The Marriage Bans 55. In 1996, the Georgia legislature enacted O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3.1. This statute – intended as a response to court decisions indicating that Hawaii might allow same-sex couples to marry – included sweeping language that prohibited marriage of same-sex couples; voided marriages from other jurisdictions; stripped
19

Georgia courts of jurisdiction to rule on rights arising from out-of-state marriages;
voided “contractual rights” arising from those marriages; and prohibited divorce in
Georgia of same-sex couples married outside the state. O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3.1
provides:
(a) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the union only of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state. Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unenforceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to such marriage or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage.
56. In 2004, the State of Georgia went further to ensure that same-sex
couples could not obtain any State-recognized status by referring to the voters a
proposed constitutional amendment to expand the marriage ban and enshrine that
ban in the State’s Constitution:
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other 20

state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.
57. The voters ratified the amendment, codified as Georgia Constitution
art. I, § IV, para. I, in November 2004.
D. Illustrative Harms
58. Barring same-sex couples from marriage or from recognition of their
lawful out-of-state marriage disqualifies them from rights and responsibilities that
different-sex couples rely on to secure their commitment to each other, and to
safeguard their families. By way of example, the marriage bans deny same-sex
couples in Georgia:
(a) The ability to celebrate a “marriage” through a state-approved
ceremony, which symbolizes the binding together of two lives and two
families, and creates relationships and memories that couples, families, and
friends cherish for a lifetime. O.C.G.A. § 19-3-1(3).
(b) The ability to safeguard family resources under an array of laws that
include, for example, the exemption from taxable income of the value of
health insurance coverage that one spouse receives through the other’s
21

employment and the homestead tax exemption for disabled veterans or their surviving spouse. O.C.G.A. § 48-5-48. (c) The ability to make caretaking decisions and exercise other rights in times of death and disaster, including the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, O.C.G.A. § 31-9-2(a)(2); the ability to receive autopsy and crime scene photographs, O.C.G.A. § 45-16-27; the ability to consent to an autopsy, O.C.G.A. § 45-16-28; priority to control disposition of a deceased spouse’s remains and to make funeral arrangements, O.C.G.A. § 31-21-7(b)(3); priority to make anatomical gifts of a decedent’s body, O.C.G.A. § 44-5-147(a)(2); standing to bring suit for wrongful death of a spouse, O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2(a); and the ability to recover worker’s compensation benefits for a spouse killed on the job, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-13(c). (d) The ability to support each other in end-of-life circumstances, such as being assured privacy for visits with a spouse in a nursing home and the right to share a room with a spouse if both reside in the same nursing home. O.C.G.A. § 31-8-114(3). (e) The right to inheritance under the laws of intestacy, O.C.G.A. § 53-21; the right to a year’s support and maintenance for the surviving spouse and children, O.C.G.A. § 53-3-1(c); the ability to elect the year’s support in lieu
22

of the will’s provision for the spouse, O.C.G.A. § 53-3-3; preference for appointment as an administrator of the deceased spouse’s estate, O.C.G.A. § 53-6-20; and various survivor benefits, including benefits for a spouse and children of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other emergency personnel killed in the line of duty, O.C.G.A. § 45-9-85. (f) Benefits for families who have made some of the greatest sacrifices for our country, including a homestead tax exemption for surviving spouses of disabled military veterans, O.C.G.A. § 48-5-48; an honorary driver’s license for the spouse of a veteran, O.C.G.A. § 40-5-36; license plates commemorating a spouse’s military service, including gold star plates for a spouse killed in action, O.C.G.A. § 40-2-85.3; and the ability to be interred in the same plot in a veteran’s cemetery, O.C.G.A. § 38-4-70. (g) The ability to secure legal recognition for parent-child bonds, including joint adoption by spouses and adoption of a spouse’s child. O.C.G.A. § 19-8-3(c). (h) The ability to file married and/or joint tax returns for both federal and Georgia taxes. On August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service issued Rev. Rule 2013-17, which provides that same-sex spouses will be treated as married for federal tax purposes whether or not the couple lives in a state
23

that recognizes marriage between persons of the same sex. Under Rule 2013-17, same-sex spouses must now file federal income tax returns using a married filing separately or jointly status. Following the issuance of Rule 2013-17, however, the Georgia Department of Revenue announced that same-sex married couples must file Georgia taxes as if they were single. Under Georgia Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin IT-2013-1025 (Oct. 25, 2013), a Georgia resident in a marriage with a person of the same sex whose federal income tax status is “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately” must complete a separate Georgia Form 500 for single filing status and recompute their federal Adjusted Gross Income and deductions, effectively requiring them to prepare dummy individual federal returns. (i) The right to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to care for a same-sex spouse. Under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., employees are entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12month period to care for a spouse with a serious medical condition, or 26 weeks to care for an eligible military service-member spouse with a serious injury or illness. Moreover, the spouses of service-members on covered active duty or who have been notified of an impending call or order to
24

covered active duty may take FMLA leave to address short-notice deployment issues, for military events and ceremonies, to make or update financial or legal arrangements, for counseling, and other exigencies caused by a call to service, 29 C.F.R. § 825.126. Because by regulation the employee’s state of residence determines whether a person is considered a spouse under the FMLA, see 29 C.F.R. § 825.102, same-sex spouses residing in Georgia are not considered spouses and would not be entitled to FMLA leave. (j) A range of important responsibilities that, like rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. For example, same-sex couples are denied the ability to be made legally accountable to each other through obligations of spousal support and child support, O.C.G.A. §§ 19-6-1, 19-615; and, in the event of separation, are denied access to an orderly dissolution process for terminating the relationship and assuring an equitable division of assets and debts, O.C.G.A. §§ 19-5-1, 19-5-13. (k) Rights and responsibilities under more than 1,000 federal statutes and regulations involving marriage, including laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. Couples lawfully married in other jurisdictions and living in Georgia may
25

qualify for some federal benefits and protections, but may be denied others, such as veteran’s spousal benefits and Social Security survivor benefits. Many of these deprivations drain family financial resources, causing harm not only to same-sex couples but also to their children. 59. In addition to these tangible harms, the State’s marriage bans deny Plaintiffs the unique social recognition that marriage conveys. Without access to the familiar language and legal label of marriage, Plaintiffs are unable immediately or adequately to communicate to others the depth and permanence of their commitment, or to obtain respect for that commitment simply by invoking their married status. 60. The inequities imposed on committed same-sex couples include harms specific to their children, who are equally deserving of the stability, permanence, and legitimacy enjoyed by children of different-sex spouses. Civil marriage affords official sanctuary to the family unit, offering parents and children critical means to secure legal parent-child bonds and a familiar, public way of demonstrating those bonds to third parties. By denying same-sex couples access to marriage, the State reinforces the view held by some that the family bonds that tie same-sex parents and their children are less consequential, enduring, and meaningful than those of different-sex parents and their children. Same-sex
26

couples and their children must live with the vulnerability and stress inflicted by a lack of access to the same mechanisms for securing their legal relationships, and the ever-present possibility that others may question their familial relationship – in social, legal, educational, and medical settings and in moments of crisis – in a way that spouses can avoid by simple reference to being married.
61. Children understand from an early age that marriage signifies an enduring family unit, and likewise understand that the State has deemed a class of families less worthy than others, undeserving of marriage, and not entitled to the same societal recognition and support as other families. The State has no adequate interest to justify marking the children of same-sex couples, including the children of Named Plaintiffs, with a badge of inferiority that will invite disrespect in school, on the playground, and in every other sphere of their lives.
62. The government is a powerful teacher of discrimination. By decreeing that same-sex relationships should be ignored in Georgia and enforcing that decree, the State and Defendants instruct all persons who interact with samesex couples, including those couples’ own children, that their relationships are less worthy than others. Bearing the imprimatur of the government, the State’s marriage bans and Defendants’ enforcement of them communicate a view that same-sex couples and their children are unfit for the dignity, respect, and stature
27

afforded to different-sex couples and their children. This encourages others in workplaces, schools, businesses, and other arenas of life to follow the government’s example in discriminating against same-sex couples – and, in turn, lesbians and gay men.
63. Many private entities defer to the State’s pronouncement of marital status in defining “family” for purposes of benefits, often resulting in the exclusion of same-sex couples and their children from safety nets such as private employerprovided health insurance for family members.
E. The Marriage Bans Pass No Level Of Scrutiny 64. There is no legitimate interest, let alone an important or compelling one, in excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. 65. Neither history nor tradition can justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Marriage has remained vital and enduring because of its resilience in response to a dynamic society, as society and the courts have cast off restrictions on, for example, interracial marriage and coverture. 66. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give effect to private biases. Liberty and equality, not moral disapproval, must be the guiding framework for a state’s treatment of its citizens.
28

67. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does nothing to protect or enhance the rights of different-sex couples. Different-sex spouses will continue to enjoy the same rights and status conferred by marriage, unimpaired by the acknowledgment that this freedom belongs equally to same-sex couples.
68. Although the State has a valid interest in protecting the public fisc, it may not pursue that interest by making invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens without adequate justification.
69. The State’s interest in child welfare is harmed rather than furthered by excluding same-sex couples from marriage. That exclusion injures same-sex couples’ children without offering any conceivable benefit to other children.
70. Barring same-sex couples from marriage does not affect which couples raise children together. Same-sex couples in Georgia can and do bear children through reproductive technology that is available to different-sex couples, and also bring children into their families through foster care and adoption. Marriage has never been the sole province of couples who are or who may become parents. Neither Georgia nor any other state has ever restricted marriage to those capable of or intending to procreate.
71. There is no valid basis for the State to assert a preference for parenting by different-sex couples over same-sex couples. Based on more than 30
29

years of research, the scientific community has reached a consensus that children raised by same-sex couples are as well-adjusted as children raised by different-sex couples. This consensus has been recognized by every major professional organization dedicated to children’s health and welfare, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America.
72. Other courts have found, after trials involving expert testimony, that there is no rational basis for favoring parenting by heterosexual couples over lesbian and gay couples. See, e.g., DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-CV-10285, 2014 WL 1100794, at *14 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014) (finding that children’s outcomes do not depend on the sex or sexual orientation of their parents); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (finding that the research supporting the conclusion that “[c]hildren raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted” is “accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology”), aff’d sub nom. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated for lack of standing sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013); In re Adoption of Doe, 2008 WL 5006172, at *20 (Fla. Cir. Ct.
30

Nov. 25, 2008) (“based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption”), aff’d sub nom. Florida Dep’t of Children & Families v. Adoption of X.X.G., 45 So.3d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010); Howard v. Child Welfare Agency Review Bd., Nos. 1999-9881, 2004 WL 3154530, at *9 and 2004 WL 3200916, at *3-4 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2004) (holding that “there was no rational relationship between the [exclusion of gay people from becoming foster parents] and the health, safety, and welfare of the foster children.”), aff’d sub nom. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Howard, 238 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2006).
73. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms their children by, among other things, branding their families as inferior and less deserving of respect, and encouraging private bias and discrimination. Denying same-sex couples the dignity and status of marriage humiliates the children raised by those couples, and makes it more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own families and its concord with other families in their community.
74. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage will not make the children of different-sex spouses more secure. The children of different-sex spouses will
31

continue to enjoy the benefits that flow from their parents’ marriages regardless of whether same-sex couples are permitted to marry. The marriage bans have no conceivable effect on the choices different-sex couples make about such profound issues as whether to marry, whether to have children, and whether to raise their children in wedlock.
75. The State’s interest in the welfare of children parented by same-sex couples is as great as its interest in the welfare of any other children. The family security that comes from the State’s official recognition and support is no less important for same-sex parents and their children than it is for different-sex parents and their children.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 76. Named Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves and, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all same-sex couples who are injured by the State’s marriage bans. The proposed Plaintiff Class consists of:
a. All Georgia residents who are unmarried same-sex couples; and b. All Georgia residents who have lawfully married a same-sex spouse in another jurisdiction.
32

77. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Upon information and belief, there are thousands of Georgia residents in same-sex couples who would marry if Georgia law permitted them to do so or who lawfully married same-sex spouses in other jurisdictions or would do so if Georgia recognized those marriages. The State’s marriage bans, and Defendants’ enforcement of them, prevent those couples from marrying or having their lawful marriage in another jurisdiction recognized by the State.
78. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). These questions include, but are not limited to:
a. Whether the State’s marriage bans violate federal substantive due process guarantees, including the fundamental right to marry, and liberty interests in autonomy and family integrity and association;
b. Whether the State’s marriage bans violate guarantees of equal protection regardless of an individual’s sexual orientation and sex in relation to the sex of his or her life partner; and
c. The level of constitutional scrutiny applicable to governmental discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to those claims.
33

79. The claims of Named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Plaintiff Class because they all arise from the State’s marriage bans and are based on the same theories of law.
80. Named Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Plaintiff Class because they do not have any interests antagonistic to the Class. Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class all seek to enjoin the State’s marriage bans. Moreover, Named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in civil rights litigation and class action litigation.
81. This action may be maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual prosecution of separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, resulting in some Georgia same-sex couples having access to marriage or recognition of their valid marriage, and others not. Individual prosecution of separate actions also could result in adjudications that, as a practical matter, would substantially impair the ability of other members to protect their interests.
82. This class action also may proceed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage bans applies generally to the Class by precluding all Class Members from marrying or precluding recognition of
34

their lawful marriages in other jurisdictions. The injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate for the Class as a whole.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Deprivation of Due Process U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint here.
84. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
85. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
86. Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, and all other sources of Georgia law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples or prevent recognition of their marriages violate the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.
35

87. The right to marry the unique person of one’s choice and to direct the course of one’s life in this intimate realm without undue government restriction is one of the fundamental liberty interests protected for all by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage bans impermissibly infringes on Plaintiffs’ choice of whom to marry and their ability to have their marriages recognized, interfering with a core, life-altering, and constitutionally protected choice.
88. The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to privacy, personal dignity, and autonomy, including each individual’s rights to family integrity and association. Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage bans impermissibly infringes Plaintiffs’ intimate, personal, and private decisions about family life, and precludes Plaintiffs from obtaining full liberty, dignity, and security for themselves, their family, and their parent-child bonds.
89. As the State Registrar and Director of Vital Records, Defendant Deborah Aderhold enforces the marriage bans by, among other things, prescribing, furnishing, and distributing forms that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and forms that prohibit same-sex couples from having their lawful out-of-state marriages recognized on birth and death certificates. These actions violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights with respect to marriage and constitutional rights to
36

liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This includes the rights of Plaintiffs who wish to marry and to have their existing marriages recognized, such as Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler, who both want to be listed as parents on the birth certificates of their planned children, and Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, who seeks an accurate death certificate for her departed spouse, Pamela Drenner, as well as of married and unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
90. As Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court, Defendant Brook Davidson ensures compliance with the marriage bans by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. These actions violate the fundamental right to marry and the rights, protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process of Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman, and the unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
91. As the Judge of Fulton County Probate Court, the Honorable Judge Pinkie Toomer ensures compliance with the State’s marriage bans by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. These actions violate the fundamental right to marry and the rights, protected under the Fourteenth
37

Amendment to the United States Constitution, to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process of Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop and Shane Thomas, and the unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
92. Defendants cannot satisfy the Due Process Clause’s decree that governmental interference with a fundamental right or liberty interest may be sustained only upon a showing that the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or important governmental interest, because the marriage bans are not even tailored to any legitimate interest.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Deprivation of Equal Protection
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV 93. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint here. 94. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. 95. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
38

96. As described throughout this Complaint, same-sex couples such as Plaintiffs are identical to different-sex couples in all characteristics relevant to marriage (see, e.g., Paragraphs 11-14).
97. Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, and all other sources of Georgia law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples or prevent recognition of their marriages violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct in enforcing these laws violates Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and sex. Moreover, by enshrining discrimination in the form of a constitutional amendment, Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, deprives lesbian and gay Georgians of the equal protection of the laws by locking them out of the political process and making it uniquely more difficult to secure legislation on their behalf.
98. As the State Registrar and Director of Vital Records, Defendant Deborah Aderhold enforces the marriage bans by, among other things, prescribing, furnishing, and distributing forms that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, and forms that prohibit same-sex couples from having their lawful out-of-state marriages recognized on birth and death certificates. These actions violate
39

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This includes the rights of Plaintiffs who wish to marry or have their existing marriages recognized, such as Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler, who both want to be listed as parents on the birth certificates of their planned children, and Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, who seeks an accurate death certificate for her departed spouse, Pamela Drenner, as well as of married and unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
99. As Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court, Defendant Brook Davidson ensures compliance with the marriage bans by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. These actions violate the constitutional rights to equal treatment of Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman, and the unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
100. As the Judge of Fulton County Probate Court, the Honorable Judge Pinkie Toomer ensures compliance with the marriage bans by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. These actions violate the constitutional rights to equal treatment of Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop and Shane Thomas, and the unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
40

101. The State’s marriage bans, and Defendants’ actions to enforce them, deny same-sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprive their families of a critical safety net of rights and responsibilities. The marriage bans brand lesbians and gay men and their children as second-class citizens through governmentimposed stigma and promote private bias and discrimination by instructing that same-sex relationships are less worthy than others. The marriage bans reflect moral disapproval and antipathy toward lesbians and gay men.
102. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation. The State’s marriage bans target lesbian and gay Georgians as a class for exclusion from marriage and discriminate against Plaintiffs based on their sexual orientation, both facially and as applied.
103. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sexual orientation subjects Defendants’ conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny. Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand this scrutiny because the exclusion does not serve any legitimate governmental interests, let alone any important or compelling interests, and does not serve any interests in an adequately tailored manner.
104. Lesbians and gay men have suffered a long and painful history of discrimination in Georgia and across the United States.
41

105. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual’s ability to perform in or contribute to society.
106. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one’s identity and conscience that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon it (even if that were possible) as a condition of equal treatment.
107. Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to change through intervention. No credible evidence supports the notion that interventions are effective or safe; indeed, they often are harmful and damaging. No mainstream mental health professional organization approves interventions intended to change sexual orientation, and almost all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public against these treatments.
108. Prejudice against lesbians and gay men continues to curtail the operation of political processes that might ordinarily be relied upon to protect minorities. Lesbians and gay men have fewer civil rights protections at the state and federal level than racial minorities and women had when race- and sex-based classifications were declared to be suspect and quasi-suspect, respectively.
109. Lesbians and gay men lack express statutory protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing at the federal
42

level and in more than half the states, including Georgia. They are systematically under-represented in federal, state, and local democratic bodies. They have been denied the right to marry through 30 state constitutional amendments and currently are not permitted to marry in 33 states. They have been targeted across the nation through the voter initiative process more than any other group.
110. Discrimination Based on Sex. The State’s marriage bans discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex, both facially and as applied, barring Plaintiffs from marriage or from recognition of their lawful marriages solely because each Plaintiff wants to be married to or married a spouse of the same sex. The sex-based restriction is plain on the face of the State’s marriage bans, which restrict marriage to a “man and woman” and prohibit marriage or recognition of a marriage from another jurisdiction between “persons of the same sex.” Ga. Const. art. I, § IV, para. I; O.C.G.A. §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30.
111. Because of these sex-based classifications, Georgia prohibits Named Plaintiff Christopher Inniss from marrying his devoted life partner because he is a man and not a woman; if Christopher were a woman, he could marry Shelton. Named Plaintiff Avery Chandler is precluded from having her marriage to RayShawn recognized as valid because she is a woman and not a man; if Avery were a man, Georgia would recognize her lawful marriage to RayShawn. Named
43

Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson is precluded from having her marriage to her deceased spouse, Pamela Drenner, recognized as valid because she is a woman and not a man; if Jennifer were a man, Georgia would recognize her lawful marriage to Pam.
112. The State’s marriage bans also serve the impermissible purpose of enforcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes by excluding Plaintiffs from marriage or from being recognized as lawfully married because Plaintiffs have failed to conform to sex-based stereotypes that men should marry women, and women should marry men.
113. Because there are no longer legal distinctions between the duties of husbands and wives, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility requirements for marriage.
114. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sex and the enforcement of gender-based stereotypes cannot survive the heightened scrutiny required for sex-based classifications in laws.
115. Discrimination with Respect to Fundamental Rights and Liberty Interests Secured by the Due Process Clause. The State’s marriage bans discriminate against Plaintiffs based on sexual orientation and sex with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and their liberty interests in dignity, autonomy, and family integrity and association. Differential treatment of
44

Plaintiffs’ exercise of fundamental rights and liberty interests based on their sexual orientation and sex subjects Defendants’ conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand.
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202;
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 57 and 65 116. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint here. 117. This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants’ present and ongoing denial of due process and equal protection subjects Plaintiffs to serious and immediate harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 118. Named Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class to protect their constitutional rights and avoid the injuries described above. A decision enjoining Defendants would redress and prevent irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or in equity. 119. The State will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry and in recognizing the lawful marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as different-sex couples, while the hardship to Plaintiffs of being denied due process and equal protection is severe, subjecting
45

them to an irreparable denial of their constitutional rights. The balance of hardships thus tips strongly in favor of Plaintiffs.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment: A. Declaring that the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2); B. Declaring that the provisions of and enforcement by Defendants of Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, and all other sources of Georgia law that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying or refuse recognition to lawful out-of-state marriages of same-sex spouses violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; C. Permanently enjoining enforcement by Defendants of Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, and all other sources of Georgia law that exclude same-sex couples from marriage or that refuse recognition to lawful out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples; D. Requiring Defendants in their official capacities to permit issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize lawful out-of-state
46

marriages of same-sex couples, subject to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to different-sex couples;
E. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and
F. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
G. The requested declaratory and injunctive relief is sought against each Defendant; each Defendant’s officers, employees, and agents; and all persons acting in concert or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant’s supervision, direction, or control.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of April, 2014,

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.

/s/ Tara L. Borelli

.

Tara L. Borelli (Bar No. 265084)

Gregory R. Nevins (Bar No. 539529)

Elizabeth L. Littrell (Bar No. 454949)

730 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1070

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Phone: (404) 897-1880

Fax: (404) 897-1884

tborelli@lambdalegal.org

gnevins@lambdalegal.org

blittrell@lambdalegal.org

BRYAN CAVE LLP William V. Custer (Bar No. 202910) Jennifer D. Odom (Bar No. 549717) Jennifer B. Dempsey (Bar No. 217536) Luke A. Lantta (Bar No. 141407) 1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W. Fourteenth Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 572-6600 Fax: (404) 572-6999 Bill.Custer@bryancave.com Jennifer.Odom@bryancave.com Jennifer.Dempsey@bryancave.com Luke.Lantta@bryancave.com

47

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. Susan L. Sommer* 120 Wall Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 809-8585 Fax: (212) 809-0055 ssommer@lambdalegal.org

BRYAN CAVE LLP Douglas E. Winter* 1155 F. Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 508-6000 Fax: (202) 220-7372 dewinter@bryancave.com
WHITE & CASE LLP David P. Draigh* Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131-2352 Phone: (305) 995-5293 Fax: (305) 358-5744 ddraigh@whitecase.com

* Pro hac vice applications forthcoming

Counsel for Plaintiffs

LOCAL RULE 7.1(D) CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this pleading has been prepared with Times New Roman font, 14 point, as approved by the Court in L.R. 5.1(C), N.D. Ga. Respectfully submitted, this 22nd day of April 2014.
/s/ Tara L. Borelli Tara L. Borelli (Bar No. 265084) tborelli@lambdalegal.org
48

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 58

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER INNISS and SHELTON STROMAN; RAYSHAWN CHANDLER and AVERY CHANDLER; MICHAEL BISHOP and JOHNNY SHANE THOMAS; ELIZABETH WURZ and KRISTA WURZ; and JENNIFER SISSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action Number 1:14-CV-01180-WSD
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
CLASS ACTION

DEBORAH ADERHOLD, in her official capacity as State Registrar and Director of Vital Records; MONICA P. FENTON, in her official capacity as Director of System Benefits – Healthcare and Pharmacy Plans for the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia; BROOK DAVIDSON, in her official capacity as Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court; and the Honorable Judge PINKIE TOOMER, in her official capacity as Judge of Fulton County Probate Court,

Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 58
INTRODUCTION 1. Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman, RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler, Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas, Elizabeth Wurz and Krista Wurz, and Jennifer Sisson bring this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of themselves and the proposed Plaintiff Class for the violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution caused by the State of Georgia’s exclusion of same-sex couples from (1) the freedom to marry and (2) the recognition of lawful marriages entered in other jurisdictions. 2. The history of the United States has been defined by the ability of each succeeding generation to recognize that social, economic, political, religious, and historical norms do not define our unalienable rights. As adopted in 1789, the Constitution of the United States permitted slavery, and allowed states to deny the majority of our adult citizens the right to vote, to criminalize inter-racial marriage, and to criminalize private consensual intimacy. But in time, the American ideal of equality and liberty demanded that our government move past cultural and majority oppressions, however long-standing, in order to secure and fulfill the individual rights of all citizens.
1

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 58
3. With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, our Constitution provided not only a more expansive definition of citizenship, but also the framework for assuring our Founders’ “self-evident” truth of liberty and equality: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
4. Guided by this framework, the United States Supreme Court has vindicated the right to marry as “fundamental” and one of the “basic civil rights of man.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Its decisions have made clear that “the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 393 (1978).
5. By this Complaint, Named Plaintiffs seek to enforce these rights and liberties. They ask this Court to hold that the State of Georgia cannot condition marriage on the sex of spouses.
2

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 58
6. Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman and Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas are loving, committed samesex couples who seek the right to marry in the State of Georgia.
7. Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler, Named Plaintiffs Elizabeth Wurz and Krista Wurz, and Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, a recent widow, are individuals who lawfully married a same-sex spouse outside the State of Georgia, but who reside in the State and seek its respect for and recognition of their marriages.
8. Named Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class defined in Section IV below (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
9. Marriage plays a unique role in our society as the celebration and hallmark of a couple’s commitment to build family life together. It confers dignity, status, rights, and responsibilities. Plaintiffs have formed or want to form enduring bonds worthy of the respect that the State affords to different-sex couples through marriage. Yet the State has deprived lesbian and gay Georgians of the right to marry their chosen partners and declines to recognize lawful marriages entered in other jurisdictions based on sexual orientation and sex. The State’s discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is enshrined in Georgia statutes and in Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, which limits
3

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 5 of 58
marriage to couples composed “of man and woman” (hereafter, the “marriage bans”).
10. The marriage bans inflict serious and irreparable harms upon samesex couples and their children that cannot be explained by reference to legitimate governmental interests.
11. Same-sex couples are identical to different-sex couples in all characteristics relevant to marriage.
12. Same-sex couples make the same commitment to each other as different-sex couples. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples fall in love, build their lives together, plan their futures together, and hope to grow old together. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples support each other emotionally and financially, and take care of each other when faced with injury or illness – as, for example, Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson did for her terminally ill spouse, Pamela Drenner.
13. Same-sex couples seek to marry for the same emotional and romantic reasons and the same reasons of dignity as different-sex spouses. They desire to declare their love and commitment before their families, friends, and community, and to obtain the status, security, protections, and responsibilities of marriage.
4

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 6 of 58
14. Like some different-sex couples, some same-sex couples, including some Named Plaintiffs, are parents raising children together. These couples and their children are equally worthy of the tangible rights and responsibilities, as well as the respect, dignity, and legitimacy, that access to marriage confers on differentsex couples and their children. For the many children born to or being raised by same-sex couples, the tangible resources and societal esteem that marriage confers are no less necessary and precious than for children of different-sex couples.
15. Our courts and our society have discarded, one by one, marriage laws that violated the United States Constitution’s mandate of equality and liberty, such as anti-miscegenation laws and laws that denied married women independence and the right to make their own decisions. History teaches us that the vitality of marriage does not depend on maintaining discriminatory laws – and that eliminating unconstitutional restrictions on marriage has enhanced the institution. Indeed, in 19 states and the District of Columbia, same-sex couples are legally marrying and the institution of marriage continues to thrive.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the subject matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
5

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 7 of 58
17. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because all Defendants reside within the Northern District of Georgia and a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place in this District.
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled in the State of Georgia.
19. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
II. PARTIES A. Named Plaintiffs
Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman 20. Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss, age 39, and Shelton Stroman, age 42, are a same-sex male couple residing in Snellville, Georgia. Chris is a veterinarian and the Chief of Staff at the Banfield Pet Hospital in Loganville, Georgia. Shelton is manager of the Snellville Pet Resort, a business the couple started together. 21. Chris and Shelton met through a mutual friend in 2001, and have been a loving and committed couple for 13 years. They are raising a 9-year-son, J.S.I., who is the highlight of their lives. More than a decade ago, Chris proposed
6

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 8 of 58
marriage to Shelton on a trip to celebrate Shelton’s birthday. Chris did not know where or how they could marry, but he wanted to show Shelton that he was committed to being with him forever. Shelton had fallen in love with Chris’s strength, compassion, and capacity for unconditional love, and he accepted the proposal, even though the men could not marry in their home state of Georgia.
22. Chris and Shelton decided to live together as a couple and as a family. Their world changed when they adopted J.S.I. in 2004. Today, J.S.I. is a happy, busy child who will start fourth grade in the fall. He is routinely on the honor roll at school, has a purple belt in tae kwon do, and is eager to play basketball and football too.
23. Chris and Shelton want to marry for several reasons, including to be recognized as a loving and committed couple without having to explain their relationship to others. As parents, they want to be recognized as a family equal to others. J.S.I. is old enough to understand that his parents are not married, and he struggles to understand why. J.S.I. wants Chris and Shelton to be married like many of his friends’ parents. J.S.I. has been to weddings, and wants to participate in Chris and Shelton’s wedding. Chris and Shelton find it painful that they cannot fulfill his wish.
7

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 9 of 58
24. Because Shelton doesn’t share J.S.I.’s last name, staff at J.S.I.’s school often ask if he is J.S.I.’s uncle. The same confusion occurs whenever they see a new dentist or doctor or complete family-related forms. The couple has to modify forms to identify their relationship to their son and once were asked if they had made a mistake. If Chris and Shelton were married and recognized as a family unit, this kind of confusion would be reduced or eliminated.
25. Shelton tried to mitigate the situation by filing a petition to change his last name. The judge berated him in open court for seeking to share a last name with another man and trying to “defeat” the court. Shelton explained that he also wanted to change his last name to match that of his son, but the judge was unmoved, and ordered him to leave the courtroom. As difficult as this experience was for Shelton, he and Chris are even more concerned that J.S.I. too will experience similar societal messages of disapproval.
RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler 26. Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler, age 29, and Avery Chandler, age 30, are a same-sex female couple residing in Jonesboro, Georgia. Avery enlisted as a U.S. Army reservist in 2008 and her current rank is Sergeant. In civilian life, Avery works as a full-time Police Officer for the Atlanta Police Department (“APD”) – and, in addition, serves as a member of the APD’s Honor
8

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 10 of 58
Guard, which presents the colors at functions in precision drill and helps bury the police force’s fallen, including carrying the deceased officer’s casket and presenting a flag to the family. Avery recently deployed to the Middle East, and will serve her country there for approximately one year; after her deployment, Avery will return to the APD. Avery’s spouse, RayShawn, also was an APD Police Officer, and recently accepted a job as a flight attendant with Delta Airlines. Avery and RayShawn are both members of Volunteer! Decatur, through which they volunteer for community events, including book and arts festivals.
27. RayShawn and Avery met in 2010 through the Atlanta Police Academy, and have been a loving and devoted couple for four years. In 2013, Avery proposed to RayShawn on April 12 – the birthday of RayShawn’s grandmother, who was a central figure in RayShawn’s life before she passed. RayShawn came downstairs that evening to find a digital picture frame Avery had programmed with pictures of them as a couple, RayShawn’s grandmother, and finally, an engagement ring. Avery, on bended knee, offered RayShawn the ring and asked RayShawn to marry her.
28. The couple wanted a lawful marriage, which Georgia would not allow. RayShawn and Avery chose Connecticut because they wanted to marry in a state neither had visited before – and to see a lighthouse together. They were
9

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 11 of 58
married in Elizabeth Park in West Hartford, Connecticut, on June 26, 2013, before a handful of close friends, and later had a ceremony and reception in Atlanta to celebrate with their friends and family.
29. Having their marriage recognized in their home state of Georgia is important to RayShawn and Avery, especially now that they are planning for children, through their efforts for RayShawn to become pregnant through artificial insemination. The State’s refusal to recognize their marriage burdens their family because Avery cannot be recognized on the birth certificate as the other parent of their children. Avery and RayShawn also worry about the stigma their children will experience because of Georgia’s refusal to recognize their marriage.
30. Both RayShawn and Avery have served their community as law enforcement officers, and Avery also serves her country as a reservist. These are difficult and dangerous jobs. If, for example, Avery were killed in the line of duty as a Police Officer, RayShawn and their hoped-for children (unlike different-sex spouses and their children) would not qualify for State survivor’s benefits.
Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas 31. Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop, age 50, and Johnny Shane Thomas (“Shane”), age 45, are a same-sex male couple residing in Atlanta, Georgia. Michael is General Counsel for AT&T Intellectual Property Corporation, and
10

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 12 of 58
Shane is a realtor who served in the Air National Guard. Shane serves on the board of First Presbyterian Preschool, where their children attend school. Michael is the President of the Atlanta Intellectual Property Inn of Court, Chair of the Atlanta Advisory Council for Savannah College of Art and Design in Atlanta, and a member of the Board of Trustees for the Atlanta Preservation Center.
32. Michael and Shane met in 2006 at a birthday party, and have been a loving, committed couple for over seven years. They have welcomed two children into their family, including their five-year-old son, T.A.B., and their almost fouryear-old daughter, M.G.B. Their lives revolve around their children. The couple wakes every day to two energetic children running around the house, and, like other parents, they spend the morning getting their children ready and off to school. Michael and Shane take T.A.B. and M.G.B. to birthday parties at Chuck E. Cheese, to Piedmont Park and the Atlanta Botanical Gardens, to Saint Luke’s Episcopal Church, to the beach, and – because Michael is a history buff – to historical sites like President Roosevelt’s home in Warm Springs, Georgia. Michael and Shane tell their children, “We adopted you because we love you so much,” and their son once answered, “No, I adopted you.”
33. Michael and Shane want to marry to express their devotion to each other and to obtain the dignity and legitimacy of marriage for their children.
11

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 13 of 58
Michael and Shane worry that, as T.A.B. and M.G.B. get older, they will realize that their friends’ parents are married, while the law treats their parents as “less than.” Michael and Shane do not want their children to carry a sense of uncertainty, inferiority, or shame because they know their parents cannot secure their relationship through marriage. Michael and Shane also worry about what might happen in the event of a medical emergency, especially if their relationship to the children is questioned. Although they carry their children’s adoption papers and advanced medical directives when they travel, they long for the day when taking such steps is unnecessary, and their family bonds are recognized.
Elizabeth Wurz and Krista Wurz 34. Named Plaintiffs Elizabeth Wurz (“Beth”), age 41, and Krista Wurz, age 39, are a same-sex female couple residing in Brunswick, Georgia. Beth is an Associate Professor of English at the College of Coastal Georgia. Krista previously served in the U.S. Air Force, and is a special education teacher at the Coastal Academy in Georgia; all of the students in her class are either on the Autism spectrum or have traumatic brain injuries. Beth and Krista are raising seven children, including five placed with them through the foster care system. 35. Beth and Krista began dating in 2006 and exchanged engagement rings in 2009. The couple had long wanted to marry, but did not make immediate
12

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 14 of 58
wedding plans, given the marriage bans. But after their two children (at the time) kept asking them when they would marry, Beth took steps to make it a reality in 2010. She gave Krista a birthday gift that appeared to be a book, but was hollowed out to make room for plane tickets to New Hampshire, a hotel reservation, and a Notice of Marriage announcement. Beth and Krista were married in New Hampshire on October 12, 2010.
36. Beth and Krista knew they wanted to open their home to more children, in particular, to children acutely in need of a stable and loving home. The State, through the Georgia Department of Children and Family Services, conducted an extensive assessment and evaluation of their family and determined that the couple was qualified to foster and adopt. Since then, the State has placed several children with them who were in need of loving, nurturing homes, both temporarily and permanently. The temporary placements have been successful and rewarding, and years later, Beth and Krista continue to enjoy a close relationship with several of their former foster children and their families. In 2010, the Division of Family and Children Services (“DFCS”) placed three siblings in need of permanent homes with them; the following year, DFCS placed infant twins who needed forever families with them. These five children, subsequently adopted by the women, have presented the couple with great challenges and even greater rewards, as the
13

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 15 of 58
children, who have been classified by the state as Special Needs children, are all now thriving as a result of the love and stability provided by Beth and Krista.
37. Although both women have been qualified as foster and adoptive parents and share equally in parenting, they cannot jointly adopt children because of the State’s refusal to recognize their marriage. Beth adopted three of the children as an “unmarried” adult in 2011, and Krista adopted two of the children as an “unmarried” adult in July 2014.
38. Despite the success the children have enjoyed, the marriage bans impose stress, insecurity, and financial hardship on the family. They deprive the children of a legally recognized relationship to both loving parents, causing worry and stress for the children. For example, M.E.W., who was adopted by Beth, likes to look at her birth certificate but is distressed to see only Beth listed as a parent, and has asked repeatedly where “Mommy Krissy” is on the form. Another daughter, O.J.W., is upset that her parents cannot be recognized as married and is afraid that she will have to go to another home if Beth (her biological parent) passes away.
39. The marriage bans negatively impact Beth and Krista and their children in a multitude of other ways. For example, because Beth and Krista are not both recognized as legal parents of their adoptive children, only one of them
14

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 16 of 58
can enroll the children in school. Beth and Krista worry about traveling with the children and caring for them during emergencies, since they are not both recognized as legal parents to their children.
40. The marriage bans impose other important tangible harms on the family. For example, Beth sought to add Krista and her stepson to her health insurance coverage after their marriage, but was told by her employer, the College of Coastal Georgia, that she could not do so because the State would not recognize her marriage. For a period of time Krista and the stepson, T.C.J., were entirely without any source of insurance, placing the strain of paying for medical care outof-pocket on the family – an extremely stressful experience when T.C.J. seriously hurt his ankle. Krista now receives coverage through her own job for herself and T.C.J., but the coverage is inferior and far more expensive – the deductible is more than ten times higher, and the emergency room co-pay is three times higher than Beth’s plan.
41. As a couple that has opened their home to children in urgent need of loving parents, Beth and Krista are distressed that the marriage bans make protecting their children more difficult. They knew raising seven children would have its own inevitable challenges, but they cannot wait for the time when the
15

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 17 of 58
difficult and unnecessary burdens that the marriage bans impose are no longer among them.
Jennifer Sisson 42. Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, age 35, recently lost the love of her life when her spouse, Pamela Drenner, age 49, passed away after a long battle with ovarian cancer. Although Jennifer and Pam knew their home state of Georgia would not recognize their marriage, they wanted to memorialize their commitment and love for each other. They were married on Valentine’s Day 2013 in New York at City Hall, surrounded by a few cherished friends and family members. 43. Pam was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2008, but had undergone successful treatment. Jennifer knew that Pam could become sick again, and believed strongly in the commitment she made to love and care for Pam in sickness and in health. 44. In April 2013, two months after the couple married, tumors appeared again on Pam’s scans. Her health seriously declined in November 2013. Jennifer took a leave of absence from her work with Delta Airlines to become Pam’s fulltime caretaker. 45. Aside from once-weekly visits from a nurse, Jennifer took care of almost everything for Pam. She administered Pam’s medication, fluids, and
16

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 18 of 58
nutrition through intravenous (“IV”) lines. She helped Pam go to the bathroom, and bathed and dressed her. By February 2014, Pam began to require around-theclock care. During the last weeks of her life, Pam had a serious infection that impaired her judgment, causing her at one point to attempt to cut her IV lines. Jennifer kept nearly constant vigil at Pam’s side to ensure she remained safe and her every need was met.
46. Pam passed away at home on March 1, 2014, surrounded by her children, Jennifer, and a hospice nurse.
47. When Jennifer thinks about her marriage to Pam, and how to honor her memory, she wants to shout their love from the rooftops. But only hours after Pam’s death, the State refused to recognize their marriage on the final document memorializing Pam’s existence – her death certificate.
48. The day after Pam’s death, Jennifer and Pam’s 18-year-old son went to the funeral home to make arrangements and review the information to be submitted to the State for the death certificate. The funeral home informed Jennifer that, under Georgia law, the only options she could choose for Pam’s marital status were “never married,” “widowed,” or “divorced.” Jennifer burst into tears, and Pam’s son – who was proud of the couple’s marriage – was stunned and upset. When Jennifer received the death certificate from the State, it listed Pam as
17

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 19 of 58
“never married.” Jennifer was listed only as an “informant” and “partner,” and the space for Pam’s spouse was left blank. Defendant Deborah Aderhold signed the death certificate as the State Registrar.
49. For Jennifer, this is a painful negation of her loving marriage to Pam and their unshakeable devotion to each other through to the last moments of Pam’s life. Jennifer’s claim is simple and profound: she wishes to have a death certificate that reflects her marriage to Pam, rather than one that erases their legal bond together as spouses.
B. Defendants 50. Defendant Deborah Aderhold is sued in her official capacity as State Registrar and Director of Vital Records. As State Registrar, Ms. Aderhold is responsible for the State Office of Vital Records and vital records registration system. This includes the registration, collection, preservation, amendment, and certification of vital records, including certificates of marriage, birth, and death. Ms. Aderhold’s statutory duties also include directing, supervising, and issuing instructions for administration and staff activities of the State Office of Vital Records, and promoting uniformity of policy and procedures throughout the State in these matters. Ms. Aderhold also is required to prescribe, furnish, and distribute forms relating to vital records, including, upon information and belief, forms that
18

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 20 of 58
express and enforce the State’s marriage bans for purposes of marriage, birth, and death certificates. Ms. Aderhold and her designees are also authorized to determine whether amendments to a death certificate may be made, including the amendment Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson would request if Georgia law acknowledged her marriage to her recently-deceased spouse. Ms. Aderhold must ensure compliance through all of these functions with relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from marriage and from having lawful out-of-state marriages recognized. She is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
51. Defendant Monica P. Fenton is sued in her official capacity as Director of System Benefits – Healthcare and Pharmacy Plans for the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (“Director”). The Board of Regents is responsible for selecting and implementing employee health insurance plans for educational institutions in the University System of Georgia, including the College of Coastal Georgia. The Board of Regents also determines eligibility for spousal and family coverage under the health plans, and in relevant part, restricts that coverage to a “legal spouse” and “step-children” under Georgia law. As Director, Ms. Fenton is responsible for ensuring that health plans maintain compliance with
19

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 21 of 58
relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from having lawful out-of-state marriages recognized for purposes of spousal health coverage. She is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
52. Defendant Brook Davidson is sued in her official capacity as Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court. Ms. Davidson’s statutory duties include issuing marriage licenses. Ms. Davidson must ensure compliance through this function with relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. She is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
53. The Honorable Judge Pinkie Toomer is sued in her official capacity as Judge of Fulton County Probate Court. Judge Toomer’s statutory duties include issuing marriage licenses. Judge Toomer must ensure compliance through this function with relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. She is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
54. Defendants, through their respective duties and obligations, are among those responsible for enforcing Georgia’s marriage bans. Each Defendant –
20

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 22 of 58
and those state, county, and municipal employees subject to their direction, supervision, and control – intentionally performed, participated in, aided, or abetted in some manner the enforcement of the marriage bans; proximately caused harm to Plaintiffs in doing so; and will continue to injure Plaintiffs irreparably if not enjoined.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 55. Plaintiffs are residents of Georgia who experience the same joys and challenges of family life as their heterosexual neighbors, co-workers, and other community members who may marry under Georgia law or whose lawful out-ofstate marriages are recognized by Georgia. Plaintiffs are productive, contributing citizens who support their families and nurture their children, but the State of Georgia does not afford them the legal protections, dignity, and respect provided to other families through access to the status of marriage. By excluding Plaintiffs from marriage and from recognition of their lawful out-of-state marriages, the State subjects Plaintiffs to legal vulnerability, unequal financial burdens, and related stress, while depriving them and their children of equal dignity and security. The marriage bans send a purposeful message that the State views lesbians and gay men and their children as second-class members of society who
21

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 23 of 58
do not deserve the same legal sanction, legal protection, respect, support, responsibilities, and obligations as different-sex spouses and their families.
A. Named Plaintiffs’ Attempts To Marry And Lawful Marriages In Other Jurisdictions
56. Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman and Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas want to marry in Georgia. They are legally qualified to marry under Georgia law, but for the fact that they are the same sex. They are of sound mind and capable of consent. They are over the age of 18. They have no living spouse of a previous undissolved marriage. They are not related to their prospective spouses within the prohibited degrees of blood or marriage. They are willing to provide the information to receive a marriage license and to pay the required fee. They are able and eager to assume the responsibilities of marriage.
57. On April 17, 2014, Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman appeared in person at the Gwinnett County Probate Court to apply for a marriage license. An agent or employee of Defendant Brook Davidson refused their application because they are the same sex.
58. On April 10, 2014, Michael Bishop and Johnny Shane Thomas appeared in person at the Fulton County Probate Court to apply for a marriage license. On April 14, 2014, they received an order of the Probate Court of Fulton
22

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 24 of 58
County denying their marriage license because they are the same sex, citing Art. I, Section IV, para. 1 of the Georgia Constitution and O.C.G.A. § 19-3-30(b)(1).
59. Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler were legally married in Connecticut on June 26, 2013. The State of Georgia would recognize them as married but for the fact that they are the same sex.
60. Named Plaintiffs Beth Wurz and Krista Wurz were legally married in New Hampshire on October 12, 2010. The State of Georgia would recognize them as married but for the fact that they are the same sex.
61. Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson and her late spouse Pamela Drenner were legally married in New York on February 14, 2013. The State of Georgia would recognize Jennifer’s marriage to Pam but for the fact they were the same sex.
B. The Plaintiff Class 62. Named Plaintiffs propose to represent a Class consisting of all Georgia residents who are unmarried same-sex couples and all Georgia residents who have lawfully married a same-sex spouse in another jurisdiction (see Paragraph 86). 63. This Class reflects the rich diversity of the State. Class members come from all walks of life, and include, by way of example, people who risk their
23

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 25 of 58
lives daily to serve as police officers; people who serve or have served the State and their country as members of the armed forces; doctors, nurses, social workers, attorneys, government officials and employees, accountants, artists, engineers, sales people, office workers, factory workers, small business owners, professors, students, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, stay-at-home parents, homemakers, retirees, and members of diverse faith communities. Many Class members are raising children together.
64. Because of the State’s marriage bans, each Class member is either unable to marry a same-sex partner in Georgia or denied recognition of her or his lawful out-of-state marriage to a same-sex spouse.
C. The Marriage Bans 65. In 1996, the Georgia legislature enacted O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3.1. This statute – intended as a response to court decisions indicating that Hawaii might allow same-sex couples to marry – included sweeping language that prohibited marriage of same-sex couples; voided marriages from other jurisdictions; stripped Georgia courts of jurisdiction to rule on rights arising from out-of-state marriages; voided “contractual rights” arising from those marriages; and prohibited divorce in Georgia of same-sex couples married outside the state. O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3.1 provides:
24

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 26 of 58
(a) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the union only of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state. Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unenforceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to such marriage or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage.
66. In 2004, the State of Georgia went further to ensure that same-sex
couples could not obtain any State-recognized status by referring to the voters a
proposed constitutional amendment to expand the marriage ban and enshrine that
ban in the State’s Constitution:
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.
25

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 27 of 58
67. The voters ratified the amendment, codified as Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, in November 2004.
D. Illustrative Harms 68. Barring same-sex couples from marriage or from recognition of their lawful out-of-state marriage disqualifies them from rights and responsibilities that different-sex couples rely on to secure their commitment to each other, and to safeguard their families. By way of example, the marriage bans deny same-sex couples in Georgia: (a) The ability to celebrate a marriage through a state-approved ceremony, which symbolizes the binding together of two lives and two families, and creates relationships and memories that couples, families, and friends cherish for a lifetime. O.C.G.A. § 19-3-1(3). (b) The ability to safeguard family resources under an array of laws that include, for example, the exemption from taxable income of the value of health insurance coverage that one spouse receives through the other’s employment and the homestead tax exemption for disabled veterans or their surviving spouse. O.C.G.A. § 48-5-48. (c) The ability to make caretaking decisions and exercise other rights in times of death and disaster, including the ability to make medical decisions
26

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 28 of 58
for an incapacitated spouse, O.C.G.A. § 31-9-2(a)(2); the ability to receive autopsy and crime scene photographs, O.C.G.A. § 45-16-27; the ability to consent to an autopsy, O.C.G.A. § 45-16-28; priority to control disposition of a deceased spouse’s remains and to make funeral arrangements, O.C.G.A. § 31-21-7(b)(3); priority to make anatomical gifts of a decedent’s body, O.C.G.A. § 44-5-147(a)(2); standing to bring suit for wrongful death of a spouse, O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2(a); and the ability to recover worker’s compensation benefits for a spouse killed on the job, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-13(c). (d) The ability to support each other in end-of-life circumstances, such as being assured privacy for visits with a spouse in a nursing home and the right to share a room with a spouse if both reside in the same nursing home. O.C.G.A. § 31-8-114(3). (e) The right to inheritance under the laws of intestacy, O.C.G.A. § 53-21; the right to a year’s support and maintenance for the surviving spouse and children, O.C.G.A. § 53-3-1(c); the ability to elect the year’s support in lieu of the will’s provision for the spouse, O.C.G.A. § 53-3-3; preference for appointment as an administrator of the deceased spouse’s estate, O.C.G.A. § 53-6-20; and various survivor benefits, including benefits for a spouse and
27

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 29 of 58
children of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other emergency personnel killed in the line of duty, O.C.G.A. § 45-9-85. (f) Benefits for families who have made some of the greatest sacrifices for our country, including a homestead tax exemption for surviving spouses of disabled military veterans, O.C.G.A. § 48-5-48; an honorary driver’s license for the spouse of a veteran, O.C.G.A. § 40-5-36; license plates commemorating a spouse’s military service, including gold star plates for a spouse killed in action, O.C.G.A. § 40-2-85.3; and the ability to be interred in the same plot in a veteran’s cemetery, O.C.G.A. § 38-4-70. (g) The ability to secure legal recognition for parent-child bonds, including joint adoption by spouses and adoption of a spouse’s child. O.C.G.A. § 19-8-3(c). (h) The ability to file married and/or joint tax returns for both federal and Georgia taxes. On August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service issued Rev. Rule 2013-17, which provides that same-sex spouses will be treated as married for federal tax purposes whether or not the couple lives in a state that recognizes marriage between persons of the same sex. Under Rule 2013-17, same-sex spouses must now file federal income tax returns using a married filing separately or jointly status. Following the issuance of Rule
28

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 30 of 58
2013-17, however, the Georgia Department of Revenue announced that same-sex married couples must file Georgia taxes as if they were single. Under Georgia Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin IT-2013-1025 (Oct. 25, 2013), a Georgia resident in a marriage with a person of the same sex whose federal income tax status is “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately” must complete a separate Georgia Form 500 for single filing status and recompute their federal Adjusted Gross Income and deductions, effectively requiring them to prepare dummy individual federal returns. (i) The right to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to care for a same-sex spouse. Under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., employees are entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12month period to care for a spouse with a serious medical condition, or 26 weeks to care for an eligible military service-member spouse with a serious injury or illness. Moreover, the spouses of service-members on covered active duty or who have been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty may take FMLA leave to address short-notice deployment issues, for military events and ceremonies, to make or update financial or legal arrangements, for counseling, and other exigencies caused
29

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 31 of 58
by a call to service, 29 C.F.R. § 825.126. Because by regulation the employee’s state of residence determines whether a person is considered a spouse under the FMLA, see 29 C.F.R. § 825.102, same-sex spouses residing in Georgia are not considered spouses and would not be entitled to FMLA leave. (j) A range of important responsibilities that, like rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. For example, same-sex couples are denied the ability to be made legally accountable to each other through obligations of spousal support and child support, O.C.G.A. §§ 19-6-1, 19-615; and, in the event of separation, are denied access to an orderly dissolution process for terminating the relationship and assuring an equitable division of assets and debts, O.C.G.A. §§ 19-5-1, 19-5-13. (k) Rights and responsibilities under more than 1,000 federal statutes and regulations involving marriage, including laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. Couples lawfully married in other jurisdictions and living in Georgia may qualify for some federal benefits and protections, but may be denied others, such as veteran’s spousal benefits and Social Security survivor benefits.
30

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 32 of 58
Many of these deprivations drain family financial resources, causing harm not only to same-sex couples but also to their children. 69. In addition to these tangible harms, the State’s marriage bans deny Plaintiffs the unique social recognition that marriage conveys. Without access to the familiar language and legal label of marriage, Plaintiffs are unable immediately or adequately to communicate to others the depth and permanence of their commitment, or to obtain respect for that commitment simply by invoking their married status. 70. The inequities imposed on committed same-sex couples include harms specific to their children, who are equally deserving of the stability, permanence, and legitimacy enjoyed by children of different-sex spouses. Civil marriage affords official sanctuary to the family unit, offering parents and children critical means to secure legal parent-child bonds and a familiar, public way of demonstrating those bonds to third parties. By denying same-sex couples access to marriage, the State reinforces the view held by some that the family bonds that tie same-sex parents and their children are less consequential, enduring, and meaningful than those of different-sex parents and their children. Same-sex couples and their children must live with the vulnerability and stress inflicted by a lack of access to the same mechanisms for securing their legal relationships, and
31

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 33 of 58
the ever-present possibility that others may question their familial relationship – in social, legal, educational, and medical settings and in moments of crisis – in a way that spouses can avoid by simple reference to being married.
71. Children understand from an early age that marriage signifies an enduring family unit, and likewise understand that the State has deemed a class of families less worthy than others, undeserving of marriage, and not entitled to the same societal recognition and support as other families. The State has no adequate interest to justify marking the children of same-sex couples, including the children of Named Plaintiffs, with a badge of inferiority that will invite disrespect in school, on the playground, and in every other sphere of their lives.
72. The government is a powerful teacher of discrimination. By decreeing that same-sex relationships should be ignored in Georgia and enforcing that decree, the State and Defendants instruct all persons who interact with samesex couples, including those couples’ own children, that their relationships are less worthy than others. Bearing the imprimatur of the government, the State’s marriage bans and Defendants’ enforcement of them communicate a view that same-sex couples and their children are unfit for the dignity, respect, and stature afforded to different-sex couples and their children. This encourages others in workplaces, schools, businesses, and other arenas of life to follow the
32

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 34 of 58
government’s example in discriminating against same-sex couples – and, in turn, lesbians and gay men.
73. Many private entities defer to the State’s pronouncement of marital status in defining “family” for purposes of benefits, often resulting in the exclusion of same-sex couples and their children from safety nets such as private employerprovided health insurance for family members.
E. The Marriage Bans Pass No Level Of Scrutiny 74. There is no legitimate interest, let alone an important or compelling one, in excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. 75. Neither history nor tradition can justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Marriage has remained vital and enduring because of its resilience in response to a dynamic society, as society and the courts have cast off restrictions on, for example, interracial marriage and coverture. 76. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give effect to private biases. Liberty and equality, not moral disapproval, must be the guiding framework for a state’s treatment of its citizens. 77. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does nothing to protect or enhance the rights of different-sex couples. Different-sex spouses will continue to
33

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 35 of 58
enjoy the same rights and status conferred by marriage, unimpaired by the acknowledgment that this freedom belongs equally to same-sex couples.
78. Although the State has a valid interest in protecting the public fisc, it may not pursue that interest by making invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens without adequate justification.
79. The State’s interest in child welfare is harmed rather than furthered by excluding same-sex couples from marriage. That exclusion injures same-sex couples’ children without offering any conceivable benefit to other children.
80. Barring same-sex couples from marriage does not affect which couples raise children together. Same-sex couples in Georgia can and do bear children through reproductive technology that is available to different-sex couples, and also bring children into their families through foster care and adoption. Marriage has never been the sole province of couples who are or who may become parents. Neither Georgia nor any other state has ever restricted marriage to those capable of or intending to procreate.
81. There is no valid basis for the State to assert a preference for parenting by different-sex couples over same-sex couples. Based on more than 30 years of research, the scientific community has reached a consensus that children raised by same-sex couples are as well-adjusted as children raised by different-sex
34

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 36 of 58
couples. This consensus has been recognized by every major professional organization dedicated to children’s health and welfare, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America.
82. Other courts have found, after trials involving expert testimony, that there is no rational basis for favoring parenting by heterosexual couples over lesbian and gay couples. See, e.g., DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-CV-10285, 2014 WL 1100794, at *14 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014) (finding that children’s outcomes do not depend on the sex or sexual orientation of their parents); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (finding that the research supporting the conclusion that “[c]hildren raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted” is “accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology”), aff’d sub nom. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated for lack of standing sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013); In re Adoption of Doe, 2008 WL 5006172, at *20 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 25, 2008) (“based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be
35

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 37 of 58
irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption”), aff’d sub nom. Florida Dep’t of Children & Families v. Adoption of X.X.G., 45 So.3d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010); Howard v. Child Welfare Agency Review Bd., Nos. 1999-9881, 2004 WL 3154530, at *9 and 2004 WL 3200916, at *3-4 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2004) (holding that “there was no rational relationship between the [exclusion of gay people from becoming foster parents] and the health, safety, and welfare of the foster children.”), aff’d sub nom. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Howard, 238 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2006).
83. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms their children by, among other things, branding their families as inferior and less deserving of respect, and encouraging private bias and discrimination. Denying same-sex couples the dignity and status of marriage humiliates the children raised by those couples, and makes it more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own families and its concord with other families in their community.
84. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage will not make the children of different-sex spouses more secure. The children of different-sex spouses will continue to enjoy the benefits that flow from their parents’ marriages regardless of whether same-sex couples are permitted to marry. The marriage bans have no
36

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 38 of 58
conceivable effect on the choices different-sex couples make about such profound issues as whether to marry, whether to have children, and whether to raise their children in wedlock.
85. The State’s interest in the welfare of children parented by same-sex couples is as great as its interest in the welfare of any other children. The family security that comes from the State’s official recognition and support is no less important for same-sex parents and their children than it is for different-sex parents and their children.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 86. Named Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves and, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all same-sex couples who are injured by the State’s marriage bans. The proposed Plaintiff Class consists of:
a. All Georgia residents who are unmarried same-sex couples; and b. All Georgia residents who have lawfully married a same-sex spouse in another jurisdiction. 87. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Upon information and belief, there are thousands of Georgia residents in same-sex couples who would marry if Georgia law permitted
37

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 39 of 58
them to do so or who lawfully married same-sex spouses in other jurisdictions or would do so if Georgia recognized those marriages. The State’s marriage bans, and Defendants’ enforcement of them, prevent those couples from marrying or having their lawful marriage in another jurisdiction recognized by the State.
88. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). These questions include, but are not limited to:
a. Whether the State’s marriage bans violate federal substantive due process guarantees, including the fundamental right to marry and remain married, and liberty interests in autonomy and family integrity and association;
b. Whether the State’s marriage bans violate guarantees of equal protection regardless of an individual’s sexual orientation and sex in relation to the sex of his or her life partner; and
c. The level of constitutional scrutiny applicable to governmental discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to those claims. 89. The claims of Named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Plaintiff Class because they all arise from the State’s marriage bans and are based on the same theories of law.
38

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 40 of 58
90. Named Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Plaintiff Class because they do not have any interests antagonistic to the Class. Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class all seek to enjoin the State’s marriage bans. Moreover, Named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in civil rights litigation and class action litigation.
91. This action may be maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual prosecution of separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, resulting in some Georgia same-sex couples having access to marriage or recognition of their valid marriage, and others not. Individual prosecution of separate actions also could result in adjudications that, as a practical matter, would substantially impair the ability of other members to protect their interests.
92. This class action also may proceed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage bans applies generally to the Class by precluding all Class Members from marrying or precluding recognition of their lawful marriages in other jurisdictions. The injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate for the Class as a whole.
39

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 41 of 58
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Deprivation of Due Process U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
93. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint here.
94. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
95. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
96. Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, and all other sources of Georgia law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples or prevent recognition of their marriages violate the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.
97. The right to marry the unique person of one’s choice and to direct the course of one’s life in this intimate realm without undue government restriction is one of the fundamental liberty interests protected for all by the Due Process Clause
40

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 42 of 58
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage bans impermissibly infringes on Plaintiffs’ choice of whom to marry and their ability to have their marriages recognized, interfering with a core, life-altering, and constitutionally protected choice.
98. The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to privacy, personal dignity, and autonomy, including each individual’s rights to family integrity and association. Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage bans impermissibly infringes Plaintiffs’ intimate, personal, and private decisions about family life, and precludes Plaintiffs from obtaining full liberty, dignity, and security for themselves, their family, and their parent-child bonds.
99. As the State Registrar and Director of Vital Records, Defendant Deborah Aderhold enforces the marriage bans by, among other things, prescribing, furnishing, and distributing forms that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and forms that prohibit same-sex couples from having their lawful out-of-state marriages recognized on birth and death certificates. These actions violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights with respect to marriage and constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This includes the rights of Plaintiffs who wish to marry and to have their existing marriages recognized,
41

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 43 of 58
such as Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler, who both want to be listed as parents on the birth certificates of their planned children, and Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, who seeks an accurate death certificate for her departed spouse, Pamela Drenner, as well as of married and unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
100. As Director of System Benefits – Healthcare and Pharmacy Plans for the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Defendant Monica P. Fenton enforces the marriage bans by, for example ensuring that health plans comply with State law, which requires that same-sex couples be excluded from having lawful out-of-state marriages recognized for purposes of spousal health coverage. These actions violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights with respect to marriage and constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This includes the rights of Plaintiffs who wish to have their existing marriages recognized for purposes of spousal health benefits, such as Named Plaintiffs Beth Wurz and Krista Wurz, and the married members of the Plaintiff Class.
101. As Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court, Defendant Brook Davidson ensures compliance with the marriage bans by, for example, denying
42

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 44 of 58
same-sex couples marriage licenses. These actions violate the fundamental right to marry and the rights, protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process of Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman, and the unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
102. As the Judge of Fulton County Probate Court, the Honorable Judge Pinkie Toomer ensures compliance with the State’s marriage bans by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. These actions violate the fundamental right to marry and the rights, protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process of Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop and Shane Thomas, and the unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
103. Defendants cannot satisfy the Due Process Clause’s decree that governmental interference with a fundamental right or liberty interest may be sustained only upon a showing that the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or important governmental interest, because the marriage bans are not even tailored to any legitimate interest.
43

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 45 of 58
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Deprivation of Equal Protection
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV 104. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint here. 105. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. 106. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 107. As described throughout this Complaint, same-sex couples such as Plaintiffs are identical to different-sex couples in all characteristics relevant to marriage (see, e.g., Paragraphs 11-14). 108. Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, and all other sources of Georgia law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples or prevent recognition of their marriages violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct in enforcing these laws violates Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of
44

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 46 of 58
sexual orientation and sex. Moreover, by enshrining discrimination in the form of a constitutional amendment, Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, deprives lesbian and gay Georgians of the equal protection of the laws by locking them out of the political process and making it uniquely more difficult to secure legislation on their behalf.
109. As the State Registrar and Director of Vital Records, Defendant Deborah Aderhold enforces the marriage bans by, among other things, prescribing, furnishing, and distributing forms that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, and forms that prohibit same-sex couples from having their lawful out-of-state marriages recognized on birth and death certificates. These actions violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This includes the rights of Plaintiffs who wish to marry or have their existing marriages recognized, such as Named Plaintiffs RayShawn Chandler and Avery Chandler, who both want to be listed as parents on the birth certificates of their planned children, and Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, who seeks an accurate death certificate for her departed spouse, Pamela Drenner, as well as of married and unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
45

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 47 of 58
110. As Director of System Benefits – Healthcare and Pharmacy Plans for the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Defendant Monica P. Fenton enforces the marriage bans by, for example, ensuring that health plans comply with State law, which requires that same-sex couples be excluded from having lawful out-of-state marriages recognized for purposes of spousal health coverage. These actions violate the constitutional rights to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution of Named Plaintiffs Beth Wurz and Krista Wurz, and the married members of the Plaintiff Class.
111. As Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court, Defendant Brook Davidson ensures compliance with the marriage bans by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. These actions violate the constitutional rights to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution of Named Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman, and the unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
112. As the Judge of Fulton County Probate Court, the Honorable Judge Pinkie Toomer ensures compliance with the marriage bans by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. These actions violate the
46

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 48 of 58
constitutional rights to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution of Named Plaintiffs Michael Bishop and Shane Thomas, and the unmarried members of the Plaintiff Class.
113. The State’s marriage bans, and Defendants’ actions to enforce them, deny same-sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprive their families of a critical safety net of rights and responsibilities. The marriage bans brand lesbians and gay men and their children as second-class citizens through governmentimposed stigma and promote private bias and discrimination by instructing that same-sex relationships are less worthy than others. The marriage bans reflect moral disapproval and antipathy toward lesbians and gay men.
114. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation. The State’s marriage bans target lesbian and gay Georgians as a class for exclusion from marriage and discriminate against Plaintiffs based on their sexual orientation, both facially and as applied.
115. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sexual orientation subjects Defendants’ conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny. Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand this scrutiny because the exclusion does not
47

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 49 of 58
serve any legitimate governmental interests, let alone any important or compelling interests, and does not serve any interests in an adequately tailored manner.
116. Lesbians and gay men have suffered a long and painful history of discrimination in Georgia and across the United States.
117. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual’s ability to perform in or contribute to society.
118. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one’s identity and conscience that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon it (even if that were possible) as a condition of equal treatment.
119. Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to change through intervention. No credible evidence supports the notion that interventions are effective or safe; indeed, they often are harmful and damaging. No mainstream mental health professional organization approves interventions intended to change sexual orientation, and almost all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public against these treatments.
120. Prejudice against lesbians and gay men continues to curtail the operation of political processes that might ordinarily be relied upon to protect minorities. Lesbians and gay men have fewer civil rights protections at the state
48

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 50 of 58
and federal level than racial minorities and women had when race- and sex-based classifications were declared to be suspect and quasi-suspect, respectively.
121. Lesbians and gay men lack express statutory protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing at the federal level and in more than half the states, including Georgia. They are systematically under-represented in federal, state, and local democratic bodies. They have been denied the right to marry through 30 state constitutional amendments and currently are not permitted to marry in 31 states. They have been targeted across the nation through the voter initiative process more than any other group.
122. Discrimination Based on Sex. The State’s marriage bans discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex, both facially and as applied, barring Plaintiffs from marriage or from recognition of their lawful marriages solely because each Plaintiff wants to be married to or married a spouse of the same sex. The sex-based restriction is plain on the face of the State’s marriage bans, which restrict marriage to a “man and woman” and prohibit marriage or recognition of a marriage from another jurisdiction between “persons of the same sex.” Ga. Const. art. I, § IV, para. I; O.C.G.A. §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30.
123. Because of these sex-based classifications, Georgia prohibits Named Plaintiff Christopher Inniss from marrying his devoted life partner because he is a
49

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 51 of 58
man and not a woman; if Christopher were a woman, he could marry Shelton. Named Plaintiff Avery Chandler is precluded from having her marriage to RayShawn recognized as valid because she is a woman and not a man; if Avery were a man, Georgia would recognize her lawful marriage to RayShawn. Named Plaintiff Jennifer Sisson is precluded from having her marriage to her deceased spouse, Pamela Drenner, recognized as valid because she is a woman and not a man; if Jennifer were a man, Georgia would recognize her lawful marriage to Pam.
124. The State’s marriage bans also serve the impermissible purpose of enforcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes by excluding Plaintiffs from marriage or from being recognized as lawfully married because Plaintiffs have failed to conform to sex-based stereotypes that men should marry women, and women should marry men.
125. Because there are no longer legal distinctions between the duties of husbands and wives, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility requirements for marriage.
126. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sex and the enforcement of gender-based stereotypes cannot survive the heightened scrutiny required for sex-based classifications in laws.
50

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 52 of 58
127. Discrimination with Respect to Fundamental Rights and Liberty Interests Secured by the Due Process Clause. The State’s marriage bans discriminate against Plaintiffs based on sexual orientation and sex with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and their liberty interests in dignity, autonomy, and family integrity and association. Differential treatment of Plaintiffs’ exercise of fundamental rights and liberty interests based on their sexual orientation and sex subjects Defendants’ conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand.
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202;
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 57 and 65 128. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint here. 129. This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants’ present and ongoing denial of due process and equal protection subjects Plaintiffs to serious and immediate harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 130. Named Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class to protect their constitutional rights and avoid the injuries described above. A decision enjoining Defendants would redress and prevent
51

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 53 of 58
irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or in equity.
131. The State will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry and in recognizing the lawful marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as different-sex couples, while the hardship to Plaintiffs of being denied due process and equal protection is severe, subjecting them to an irreparable denial of their constitutional rights. The balance of hardships thus tips strongly in favor of Plaintiffs.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment: A. Declaring that the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2); B. Declaring that the provisions of and enforcement by Defendants of Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, and all other sources of Georgia law that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying or refuse recognition to lawful out-of-state marriages of same-sex spouses violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
52

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 54 of 58
C. Permanently enjoining enforcement by Defendants of Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, and all other sources of Georgia law that exclude same-sex couples from marriage or that refuse recognition to lawful out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples;
D. Requiring Defendants in their official capacities to permit issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize lawful out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, subject to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to different-sex couples;
E. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and
F. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
G. The requested declaratory and injunctive relief is sought against each Defendant; each Defendant’s officers, employees, and agents; and all persons acting in concert or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant’s supervision, direction, or control.
53

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 55 of 58

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of August, 2014,

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.

/s/ Tara L. Borelli

.

Tara L. Borelli (Bar No. 265084)

Gregory R. Nevins (Bar No. 539529)

Elizabeth L. Littrell (Bar No. 454949)

730 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1070

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Phone: (404) 897-1880

Fax: (404) 897-1884

tborelli@lambdalegal.org

gnevins@lambdalegal.org

blittrell@lambdalegal.org

BRYAN CAVE LLP William V. Custer (Bar No. 202910) Jennifer D. Odom (Bar No. 549717) Jennifer B. Dempsey (Bar No. 217536) Luke A. Lantta (Bar No. 141407) 1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W. Fourteenth Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 572-6600 Fax: (404) 572-6999 Bill.Custer@bryancave.com Jennifer.Odom@bryancave.com Jennifer.Dempsey@bryancave.com Luke.Lantta@bryancave.com

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. Susan L. Sommer (Pro Hac Vice) 120 Wall Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 809-8585 Fax: (212) 809-0055 ssommer@lambdalegal.org

BRYAN CAVE LLP Douglas E. Winter (Pro Hac Vice) 1155 F. Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 508-6000 Fax: (202) 220-7372 dewinter@bryancave.com
WHITE & CASE LLP David P. Draigh (Pro Hac Vice) Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131-2352 Phone: (305) 995-5293 Fax: (305) 358-5744 ddraigh@whitecase.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

54

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 56 of 58
LOCAL RULE 7.1(D) CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this pleading has been prepared with Times New Roman font, 14 point, as approved by the Court in L.R. 5.1(C), N.D. Ga. Respectfully submitted, this 4th day of August 2014.
/s/ Tara L. Borelli Tara L. Borelli (Bar No. 265084) tborelli@lambdalegal.org
55

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 57 of 58

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 4, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the following attorneys of record:

Tara L. Borelli Susan L. Sommer (Pro Hac Vice) Gregory R. Nevins Elizabeth L. Littrell LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David P. Draigh (Pro Hac Vice) WHITE & CASE LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Diana L. Freeman Kaye W. Burwell R. David Ware FULTON COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Attorneys for Defendant Hon. Judge Pinkie Toomer

William V. Custer Douglas E. Winter (Pro Hac Vice) Jennifer D. Odom Jennifer B. Dempsey Luke A. Lantta BRYAN CAVE LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Devon Orland OFFICE OF STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorneys for Defendant Deborah Aderhold
Frank E. Jenkins, III Michael Van Stephens, II Robert L. Walker JENKINS & BOWEN, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Brook Davidson

I further certify that all attorneys of record are CM/ECF participants.
/s/ Tara L. Borelli Tara L. Borelli (Bar No. 265084) Attorney for Plaintiffs
56

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 37 Filed 08/04/14 Page 58 of 58
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. 730 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1070 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Phone: (404) 897-1880 tborelli@lambdalegal.org
57

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 61 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 61 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 7
opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In that opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that a State’s prohibition on same-sex marriage, and a State’s refusal to recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other States, does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. See DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388, 403-20 (6th Cir. 2014).
In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court appears to have recognized a split among the Sixth Circuit and other United States Courts of Appeals on whether same-sex marriage bans are constitutional. In the Sixth Circuit Cases, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the following questions:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? DeBoer, 2015 WL 213650, at *1. The constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, and the standard of review that a court applies to evaluate them, have been considered by approximately forty eight (48) United States District Courts and Courts of Appeals. The holdings in these cases and the reasoning behind them are varied. In addition to the split among the Circuits, there is a split of opinion on these issues among the District Courts in the Eleventh Circuit. In Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D.
2

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 61 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 7
Fla. 2014), the district court applied strict scrutiny to invalidate Florida’s same-sex marriage ban because the district court concluded that the ban infringed on the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry. The decision in Brenner is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The appeal has not been stayed.3
The Court’s January 8, 2015, Opinion and Order (the “January 8th Order”) [49] reaches a different conclusion than was reached in Brenner. In its January 8th Order, the Court considered Georgia’s marriage laws, as enacted by O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3.1 and Art. I, § IV, Para. I of the Georgia State Constitution, prohibiting same-sex marriages in Georgia and preventing recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other States. The Court found that Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The Court also determined that the rational basis test applies to Plaintiffs’ claims based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court’s decision in Brenner differs materially on these issues.
The parties acknowledge that the Court has discretion, under Rule 26(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to grant a stay and alter the sequence of discovery “for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of 3 In Searcy v. Strange, No. 1:14-cv-00208, 2015 WL 328728 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 23, 2015), the district court held that Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. On January 26, 2015, the defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.
3

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 61 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 7
justice.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2). In support of staying this action, the parties assert that the Supreme Court’s determination of the issues on which it granted certiorari in the Sixth Circuit Cases “will most certainly guide the future path of the case at bar,” Mot. to Stay [53] at 3; “will likely guide the future path of the present action,” Def. Davidson’s Resp. [57] at 3; and “will likely significantly reshape the issues for discovery, and may decide this case, and given the discovery that Defendants believe is necessary, Plaintiffs believe that proceeding with the case before [the Sixth Circuit Cases] [are] decided would not serve the interests of efficiency or judicial economy,” Pls’ Am. Resp. [59] at 2. Plaintiffs also recognize that Brenner v. Armstrong, No. 14-14061 (11th Cir.), is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, and that the Circuit opinion in that case “could also reshape discovery or decide the issues in this case.” Id.4
The Court has considered the parties’ input and evaluated a proper balance between Plaintiffs’ practical concern that a stay withholds from them the recognition to which they claim they are constitutionally entitled, and Georgia and its citizens’ interest in having full review of the Georgia statute and constitutional provision at issue. This balance is best accomplished by presenting to the Eleventh
4 This observation implicitly acknowledges that the Eleventh Circuit could consider the important issues in Brenner, also raised in this case, without the benefit of input from the parties in this action.
4

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 61 Filed 01/29/15 Page 5 of 7
Circuit the full range of judicial interpretations of the constitutional issues presented in Brenner and in this case—issues, the resolution of which, will have a fundamental and transformative impact on legal, cultural and individual interests in our State and our Nation.
The Court concludes, therefore, that the interests in this case are best served by: (i) staying discovery; (ii) not staying Defendants Aderhold’s and Fenton’s obligation to answer Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, so this case is reasonably processed further; and (iii) allowing the parties to seek an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s January 8th Order.
Allowing an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s January 8th Order permits the parties to support or challenge the Court’s reasoning or conclusions in the January 8th Order, including whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and whether Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the United States Constitution. By allowing an appeal in this case, the Eleventh Circuit can elect to have before it two differing views and constitutional analyses of these issues. Accordingly, and to allow an interlocutory appeal, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certifies that the January 8th Order, “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the [O]rder may
5

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 61 Filed 01/29/15 Page 6 of 7
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); see also Fed. R. App. P. 5(a)(3) (district court may sua sponte amend its order to include required permission or statement allowing party to petition for appeal; new period for filing petition runs from entry of amended order).
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Aderhold’s and Fenton’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling by the United States Supreme Court [53] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED with respect to discovery in this action, but DENIED with respect to non-discovery pleadings, including the Answer required to be filed by Defendants Aderhold and Fenton. Defendants Aderhold’s and Fenton’s Answer is required to be filed on or before February 17, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s January 8, 2015, Opinion and Order [49] is CERTIFIED under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court determines that its January 8th Order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the January 8th Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation. The ten-day period within which to appeal the Court’s January 8th Order will run from the date of this Order.
6

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 61 Filed 01/29/15 Page 7 of 7
SO ORDERED this 29th day of January, 2015. _______________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 67 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 67 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 3
appropriate. The Court agrees, however, that Obergefell requires entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs because Obergefell prohibits the enforcement of Georgia Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, and O.C.G.A. §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, or to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. See Obergefell, 135 S.Ct. at 2605, 2608.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss, Shelton Stroman, Rayshawn Chandler, Avery Chandler, Michael Bishop, Johnny Shane Thomas, Jennifer Sisson, Elizabeth Wurz and Krista Wurz. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and their officers, employees, agents, and all other individuals under their supervision, direction, or control are permanently enjoined from enforcing Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, and O.C.G.A. §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-3-30, to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, or to refuse to
2

Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 67 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 3
recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.1
SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2015. _______________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Plaintiffs have agreed not to seek fees or costs in this matter. (Status Report at 5). Based on this representation, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this matter.
3

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 1 of 16
4months,CLASS,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−01180−WSD

Inniss et al v. Aderhold et al Assigned to: Judge William S. Duffey, Jr Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Christopher Inniss

Date Filed: 04/22/2014 Date Terminated: 10/08/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by David P. Draigh White &Case, LLP −FL Suite 4900 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131−2352 305−995−5293 Fax: 305−358−5744 Email: ddraigh@whitecase.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas E. Winter Bryan Cave, LLP−DC 1155 F. Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 202−508−6000 Fax: 202−220−7372 Email: dewinter@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell Lambda Legal Suite 1070 730 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30308 404−897−1880 ext. 231 Fax: 404−897−1884 Email: bethlittrell@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.−GA Suite 1070 730 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30308 404−897−1880 Email: gnevins@lambdalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Burch Dempsey Bryan Cave, LLP−ATL One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor 1201 West Peachtree St, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309−3488

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 2 of 16

404−572−6985 Email: jennifer.dempsey@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Devine Odom Bryan Cave, LLP−ATL One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor 1201 West Peachtree St, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309−3488 404−572−6600 Fax: 404−572−6999 Email: jennifer.odom@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luke A. Lantta Bryan Cave, LLP−ATL One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor 1201 West Peachtree St, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309−3488 404−572−6600 Email: luke.lantta@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan L. Sommer Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.−NY 19th Floor 120 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 212−809−8585 Fax: 212−809−0055 Email: ssommer@lambdalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara L. Borelli Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.−GA Suite 1070 730 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30308 404−897−1880 Email: tborelli@lambdalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Vance Custer , IV Bryan Cave, LLP−ATL One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor 1201 West Peachtree St, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309−3488 404−572−6600 Email: bill.custer@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shelton Stroman

represented by David P. Draigh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 3 of 16

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas E. Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Burch Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Devine Odom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luke A. Lantta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan L. Sommer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara L. Borelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Vance Custer , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rayshawn Chandler

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

Douglas E. Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 4 of 16

Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Burch Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Devine Odom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luke A. Lantta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan L. Sommer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara L. Borelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Vance Custer , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Avery Chandler

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

Douglas E. Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Burch Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Devine Odom (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 5 of 16

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luke A. Lantta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan L. Sommer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara L. Borelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Vance Custer , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Bishop

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

Douglas E. Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Burch Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Devine Odom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luke A. Lantta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan L. Sommer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 6 of 16

Plaintiff Johnny Shane Thomas
Plaintiff

Tara L. Borelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Vance Custer , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Draigh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas E. Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Burch Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Devine Odom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Luke A. Lantta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan L. Sommer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara L. Borelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Vance Custer , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 7 of 16

Jennifer Sisson on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

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

Douglas E. Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Burch Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Devine Odom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luke A. Lantta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan L. Sommer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara L. Borelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Vance Custer , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Elizabeth Wurz

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

Douglas E. Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 8 of 16

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

Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Burch Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Devine Odom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luke A. Lantta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan L. Sommer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara L. Borelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Vance Custer , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Krista Wurz

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

Douglas E. Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Burch Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 9 of 16
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Devine Odom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Luke A. Lantta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan L. Sommer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara L. Borelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Vance Custer , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Deborah Aderhold in her official capacity as State Registrar and Director of Vital Records
Defendant Brook Davidson in her official capacity as Clerk of Gwinnett County Probate Court

represented by Britt Cagle Grant Office of the Attorney General−GA 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, GA 30334−1300 404−651−9453 Email: bgrant@law.ga.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devon Orland Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334−1300 404−463−8850 Fax: 404−651−5304 Email: dorland@law.ga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nels Stefan David Peterson Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Vice Chancellor of Legal Affairs 270 Washington Street Atlanta, GA 30334 404−962−3255 Email: nels.peterson@usg.edu TERMINATED: 01/12/2015
represented by Devon Orland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 10 of 16

Frank E. Jenkins , III Jenkins &Bowen, P.C. 15 South Public Square Cartersville, GA 30120−3350 770−387−1373 Email: fjenkins@ga−lawyers.pro ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Van Stephens , II Gwinnett County Law Department 75 Langley Drive Lawrenceville, GA 30045−6900 770−822−8700 Email: van.stephens@gwinnettcounty.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Lige Walker Jenkins &Bowen, P.C. 15 South Public Square Cartersville, GA 30120−3350 770−387−1373 Email: RWalker@ga−lawyers.pro ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Honorable Judge Pinkie Toomer in her official capacity as Judge of Fulton County Probate Court

represented by Devon Orland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana L. Freeman City of Atlanta Law Department Suite 5000 55 Trinity Avenue, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404−612−0246 Email: dlfreeman@atlantaga.gov TERMINATED: 01/28/2015

Kaye Woodard Burwell Office of the Fulton County Attorney Suite 4038 141 Pryor Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 404−612−0262 Fax: 404−730−6324 Email: kaye.burwell@fultoncountyga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lanna Renee Hill Office of the Fulton County Attorney 141 Pryor St. Suite 4038 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−612−0246 Fax: 404−730−6324 Email: lanna.hill@fultoncountyga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. David Ware Ichter Kresky &Associates, LLC Suite 1530, One Tower Place 3340 Peachtree Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30326−1084 404−869−5248

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 11 of 16

Email: dware@ichterkresky.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Monica P. Fenton in her official capacity as Director of System Benefits Healthcare and Pharmacy Plans for the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

represented by Britt Cagle Grant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devon Orland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nels Stefan David Peterson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2015

Date Filed 04/22/2014
04/22/2014 04/22/2014 04/23/2014 04/23/2014 04/23/2014 04/24/2014 04/24/2014
04/24/2014 04/24/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Avery Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Johnny Shane Thomas, Michael Bishop, Rayshawn Chandler, Shelton Stroman and Jennifer Sisson. ( Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 113E−5144522.) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(eop) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions which includes the Consent To Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate form. (Entered: 04/22/2014)
2 Electronic Summons Issued as to Deborah Aderhold, Brook Davidson and Judge Pinkie Toomer. (Attachments: # 1 B. Davidson, # 2 P. Toomer)(eop) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
3 Certificate of Interested Persons by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman and Johnny Shane Thomas. (eop) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Tara L. Borelli on behalf of Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas (Borelli, Tara) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
5 APPLICATION for Admission of Susan Sommer Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−5149525)by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas. (Borelli, Tara) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Lynn Littrell on behalf of Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas (Littrell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Gregory R. Nevins on behalf of Christopher Inniss (Nevins, Gregory) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 5 APPLICATION for Admission of Susan Sommer Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−5149525). Attorney Susan L. Sommer added appearing on behalf of Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas (pb) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
ORDER (by docket entry only) granting 5 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Susan Sommer. Ordered by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 4/24/14. (jdb) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
8 APPLICATION for Admission of Douglas E. Winter Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−5151440)by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas. (Custer, William) (Entered: 04/24/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 12 of 16

04/24/2014
04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/30/2014
05/05/2014
05/07/2014 05/07/2014
05/07/2014 05/13/2014 05/14/2014
05/20/2014 05/27/2014 05/29/2014 05/29/2014 05/29/2014 05/30/2014

9 APPLICATION for Admission of David P. Draigh Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−5151546)by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas. (Custer, William) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
RETURN of 9 APPLICATION for Admission of David P. Draigh Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−5151546) to attorney for correction re: format. (pb) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
10 APPLICATION for Admission of David P. Draigh Pro Hac Vice by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas. (Custer, William) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 8 APPLICATION for Admission of Douglas E. Winter Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−5151440). Attorney Douglas E. Winter added appearing on behalf of Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas (pb) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Avery Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Johnny Shane Thomas, Michael Bishop, Rayshawn Chandler, Shelton Stroman, Jennifer Sisson. Deborah Aderhold waiver mailed on 4/22/2014, answer due 6/23/2014. (Borelli, Tara) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
ORDER (by docket entry only) granting 8 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Douglas E. Winter. Ordered by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 5/7/14. (jdb) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 10 APPLICATION for Admission of David P. Draigh Pro Hac Vice. Attorney David P. Draigh added appearing on behalf of Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas (pb) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
ORDER (by docket entry only) granting 10 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of David P. Draigh. Ordered by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 5/7/14. (jdb) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
12 NOTICE by Christopher Inniss, Shelton Stroman of Local Rule 23.1(C)(2) Joint Statement (Custer, William) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Avery Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Johnny Shane Thomas, Michael Bishop, Rayshawn Chandler, Shelton Stroman, Jennifer Sisson. Brook Davidson waiver mailed on 4/22/2014, answer due 6/23/2014. (Borelli, Tara) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Pinkie Toomer. Pinkie Toomer waiver mailed on 4/22/2014, answer due 6/23/2014. (Burwell, Kaye) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response Either by Answer or Motion to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Proposed Order by Deborah Aderhold, Brook Davidson, Pinkie Toomer. (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Frank E. Jenkins, III on behalf of Brook Davidson (Jenkins, Frank) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Lige Walker on behalf of Brook Davidson (Walker, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Van Stephens, II on behalf of Brook Davidson (Stephens, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
19 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time Revised Consent Motion For Extension of Time to File a Response Either by Answer or Motion to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Deborah Aderhold, Brook Davidson, Pinkie Toomer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Orland, Devon) Modified on 5/30/2014 in order to update motion type (anc). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 13 of 16

05/30/2014 05/30/2014 05/30/2014 05/30/2014 06/11/2014 06/18/2014 07/08/2014 07/18/2014 07/18/2014 07/21/2014 07/21/2014 07/21/2014 07/21/2014 07/22/2014
07/24/2014
07/25/2014

20 NOTICE of Appearance by Kaye Woodard Burwell on behalf of Pinkie Toomer (Burwell, Kaye) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Diana L. Freeman on behalf of Pinkie Toomer (Freeman, Diana) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by R. David Ware on behalf of Pinkie Toomer (Ware, R.) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
23 ORDER GRANTING 19 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer or Respond to Complaint. Defendants shall have an additional thirty (30) days, up to and including July 21 2014, in which to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/30/2014. (anc) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by Devon Orland on behalf of Deborah Aderhold (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Nels Stefan David Peterson on behalf of Deborah Aderhold (Peterson, Nels) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
26 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): July 22, 2014 through July 28, 2014 and August 6, 2014 through August 12, 2014, by Devon Orland. (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
27 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Deborah Aderhold. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Orland, Devon) Modified on 7/21/2014 in order to remove duplicate text (anc). (Entered: 07/18/2014)
28 ORDER GRANTING 27 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendant Deborah Aderhold is permitted to file a brief in support of a motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b) that is up to forty five (45) pages in length. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/18/2014. (anc) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM with Brief In Support by Deborah Aderhold. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Her Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A)(Orland, Devon) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
30 Certificate of Interested Persons by Brook Davidson. (Jenkins, Frank) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
31 ANSWER to 1 COMPLAINT by Brook Davidson. Discovery ends on 12/18/2014.(Jenkins, Frank) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 07/21/2014)
32 ANSWER to 1 COMPLAINT by Pinkie Toomer.(Burwell, Kaye) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on 7/23/2014 in order to remove duplicate text (anc). (Entered: 07/21/2014)
NOTICE FROM THE COURT (by docket entry only): Parties are advised to go to the district courts website at www.gand.uscourts.gov. On the home page, locate the Attorney Information link which will direct you to Preparation for a Civil and/or Criminal Trial Before Judge Duffey. Here, the Court has provided its Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigants. The Parties shall abide by this Standing Order throughout the processing of this case. Parties are instructed to pay particular attention to the requirements for Motions for Summary Judgment. (jdb) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
33 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Defendant Deborah Aderhold's 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , MOTION To Exceed Page Limit by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Borelli, Tara) Added MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages on 7/25/2014 (anc). (Entered: 07/24/2014)
34 ORDER GRANTING 33 Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. No later than September 5, 2014, Plaintiffs shall serve a brief of no more than 40 pages in length opposing Defendant Deborah Aderhold's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/25/2014. (anc) (Entered:

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 14 of 16

07/31/2014
07/31/2014
08/04/2014
08/05/2014 08/05/2014
08/05/2014 08/08/2014 08/18/2014 09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/11/2014 09/12/2014 10/06/2014

07/25/2014)
35 Unopposed MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint, to Add Plaintiffs and A Defendant by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − First Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Custer, William) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
36 ORDER GRANTING 35 Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Plaintiffs and a Defendant. Plaintiffs shall have five (5) days from the date of this Order to file their First Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Those Defendants who have answered the previously filed complaint are relieved of any obligation under the rules of civil procedure to answer the amended complaint. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/31/2014. (anc) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
37 First AMENDED COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against All Defendants, filed by Avery Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Johnny Shane Thomas, Michael Bishop, Rayshawn Chandler, Shelton Stroman, Jennifer Sisson. (Attachments: # 1 Summons for Monica P. Fenton)(Borelli, Tara) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions which includes the Consent To Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate form. (Entered: 08/04/2014)
38 Electronic Summons Issued as to Monica P. Fenton. (anc) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
39 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed filed by Christopher Inniss, Johnny Shane Thomas, Jennifer Sisson, Avery Chandler, Krista Wurz, Elizabeth Wurz, Michael Bishop, Shelton Stroman, Rayshawn Chandler. Monica P. Fenton served on 8/4/2014, answer due 8/26/2014. (Custer, William) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
40 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Until Such a Time That The Court Rules on the Pending Motion To Dismiss and Brief in Support by Deborah Aderhold. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Orland, Devon) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
41 ORDER GRANTING 40 Motion to Stay Proceedings. This case is stayed until such time as the Court rules on Defendant Aderhold's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 8/7/2014. (anc) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
42 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
Submission of 42 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , submitted to District Judge William S. Duffey. (anc) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 42 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed by Christopher Inniss. (Custer, William) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of Defendants Pending Motion to Dismiss and Proposed Order by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
ORDER (by docket entry only) granting 44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of Defendants Pending Motion to Dismiss up to and including 10/22/14. No Further Extensions Will Be Granted. Ordered by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 9/12/14. (jdb) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
45 NOTICE Of Filing Supplemental Authority by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas, Elizabeth Wurz, Krista Wurz re 43 Response in Opposition to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Supreme Court Order Denying Certiorari)(Borelli, Tara) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 15 of 16

10/22/2014 10/23/2014 11/24/2014 11/26/2014
01/08/2015 01/12/2015 01/12/2015 01/12/2015 01/20/2015 01/20/2015 01/22/2015 01/23/2015
01/26/2015 01/27/2015 01/28/2015

46 REPLY BRIEF re 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 42 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Opinion and Order)(Orland, Devon) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
Submission of 42 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , submitted to District Judge William S. Duffey. (anc) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
47 NOTICE Of Filing Supplemental Authority by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Opinion, # 2 Exhibit B Supreme Court Docket Page)(Orland, Devon) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
48 NOTICE Of Filing Supplemental Authority by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas, Elizabeth Wurz, Krista Wurz re 43 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Jernigan v. Crane (E.D. Ark. Nov. 25, 2014), # 2 Exhibit B − Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant (S.D. Miss. Nov. 25, 2014))(Borelli, Tara) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
49 OPINION and ORDER denying 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 42 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/8/15. (hfm) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by Britt Grant on behalf of Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton (Orland, Devon) Modified on 1/13/2015 to correct attorney name. (jtj) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
51 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Britt Grant replacing attorney Nels Stefan David Peterson. (Orland, Devon) Modified on 1/13/2015 in order to update docket text (anc). (Entered: 01/12/2015)
52 MOTION to Withdraw Nels Stefan David Peterson as Attorneyby Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Nels) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
53 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling by the United States Supreme Court by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
54 PROPOSED ORDER Unopposed Motion re: 53 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling by the United States Supreme Court. (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
55 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Orland, Devon) Modified on 2/3/2015 to correct filing attorney(hfm). (Entered: 01/22/2015)
56 ORDER that Plaintiffs and Defendants Davidson and Toomer shall, on or before January 28, 2015, file their response to the Motion to Stay 53 , so that the Court can determine whether a Stay is warranted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Aderholds and Fentons Consent Motion to Extend Time to Answer the Amended Complaint 55 is GRANTED. The Court will determine the schedule for filing an Answer to the Amended Complaint after it determines if this matter will be stayed. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/23/15. (hfm) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
57 RESPONSE re 53 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling by the United States Supreme Court filed by Brook Davidson. (Walker, Robert) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
58 RESPONSE re 53 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling by the United States Supreme Court filed by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas, Elizabeth Wurz, Krista Wurz. (Borelli, Tara) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
59 AMENDED RESPONSE re 53 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling by the United States Supreme Court filed by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton

Case: 1:14-cv-01180-WSD As of: 11/15/2015 02:45 PM EST 16 of 16

01/28/2015 01/29/2015
02/13/2015 03/05/2015 04/28/2015 09/02/2015 09/15/2015 10/07/2015
10/08/2015 10/08/2015

Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas, Elizabeth Wurz, Krista Wurz. (Borelli, Tara) Modified on 1/28/2015 in order to uodate docket text (anc). (Entered: 01/28/2015)
60 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Lanna Renee Hill replacing attorney Diana L. Freeman. (Hill, Lanna) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
61 ORDER that the 53 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling by the United States Supreme Court is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED with respect to discovery in this action, but DENIED with respect to non−discovery pleadings, including the Answer required to be filed by Defendants Aderhold and Fenton. Defendants Aderhold's and Fenton's Answer is required to be filed on or before February 17, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's January 8, 2015, Opinion and Order 49 is CERTIFIED under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court determines that its January 8th Order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the January 8th Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation. The ten−day period within which to appeal the Court's January 8th Order will run from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/29/2015. (anc) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
62 Defenses and ANSWER to 37 Amended Complaint by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton.(Orland, Devon) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 02/13/2015)
63 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 04−06−2015 through 04−13−2015, 06−23−2015, 07−01−2015 through 07−02−2015, 08−10−2015 through 08−11−2015, by Devon Orland. (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
64 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): May 18, 2015 through May 20, 2015, by Devon Orland. (Orland, Devon) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
65 ORDER that the parties are directed to file, on or before September 15, 2015, a joint status report discussing the impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Obergefell v Hodges. The parties should specifically advise the Court of their recommendation regarding the further processing, if any, of this litigation Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/2/2015. (anc) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
66 STATUS REPORT by Michael Bishop, Avery Chandler, Rayshawn Chandler, Christopher Inniss, Jennifer Sisson, Shelton Stroman, Johnny Shane Thomas, Elizabeth Wurz, Krista Wurz. (Borelli, Tara) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
67 ORDER that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs Christopher Inniss, Shelton Stroman, Rayshawn Chandler, Avery Chandler, Michael Bishop, Johnny Shane Thomas, Jennifer Sisson, Elizabeth Wurz and Krista Wurz. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and their officers, employees, agents, and all other individuals under their supervision, direction, or control are permanently enjoined from enforcing Constitution art. I, § IV, para. I, and O.C.G.A. §§ 19−3−3.1, 19−3−30, to exclude same−sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite−sex couples, or to refuse to recognize a lawful same−sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same−sex character. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/7/2015. (anc) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
68 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered in favor of plaintiffs (anc)−−Please refer to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov to obtain an appeals jurisdiction checklist−− (Entered: 10/08/2015)
Civil Case Terminated. (anc) (Entered: 10/08/2015)