IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARI D. SEARCY and KIMBERLY 

MCKEAND, individually and as 

parent and next friend of K.S., a 

minor,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0208-CG-N

LUTHER STRANGE, in his capacity 

as Attorney General for the State of 

Alabama,

Defendant.

MEMORANUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case challenges the constitutionality of the State of Alabama’s “Alabama 

Sanctity of Marriage Amendment” and the “Alabama Marriage Protection Act.” It is 

before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment (Docs. 21, 22, 47 & 48). 

For the reasons explained below, the Court finds the challenged laws to be 

unconstitutional on Equal Protection and Due Process Grounds.

I. Facts

This case is brought by a same-sex couple, Cari Searcy and Kimberly 

McKeand, who were legally married in California under that state’s laws. The 

Plaintiffs want Searcy to be able to adopt McKeand’s 8-year-old biological son, K.S., 

under a provision of Alabama’s adoption code that allows a person to adopt her 

“spouse’s child.” ALA. CODE § 26-10A-27. Searcy filed a petition in the Probate Court 

of Mobile County seeking to adopt K.S. on December 29, 2011, but that petition was 

denied based on the “Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment” and the “Alabama 

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10
2

Marriage Protection Act.” (Doc. 22-6). The Alabama Sanctity of Marriage 

Amendment to the Alabama Constitution provides the following:

(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity 

of Marriage Amendment.

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a 

woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in 

encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in 

order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of 

society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of 

the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a 

woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is 

present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which 

is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to 

parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of 

parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred 

as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a 

marriage license was issued.

(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law 

marriage of parties of the same sex.

(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex 

in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered 

and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this 

state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other 

union replicating marriage.

ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006). 

The Alabama Marriage Protection Act provides:

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Alabama 

Marriage Protection Act.”

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a 

woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in 

encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in 

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 10
3

order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of 

society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of 

the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a 

woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is 

present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which 

is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to 

parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of 

parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred 

as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a 

marriage license was issued.

ALA. CODE § 30-1-19. Because Alabama does not recognize Plaintiffs’ marriage, 

Searcy does not qualify as a “spouse” for adoption purposes. Searcy appealed the 

denial of her adoption petition and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the 

decision of the probate court. (Doc. 22-7).

II. Discussion

There is no dispute that the court has jurisdiction over the issues raised 

herein, which are clearly constitutional federal claims. This court has jurisdiction 

over constitutional challenges to state laws because such challenges are federal 

questions. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant “shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P 56(a). Because the parties do not dispute the pertinent 

facts or that they present purely legal issues, the court turns to the merits. 

Plaintiffs contend that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama 

Marriage Protection Act violate the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause and 

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 10
4

the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Alabama’s Attorney General, Luther Strange, contends that Baker v. Nelson, 409 

U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972), is controlling in this case. In Baker, the 

United States Supreme Court summarily dismissed “for want of substantial federal 

question” an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court, which upheld a ban on 

same-sex marriage. Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn.1971), 

appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). The Minnesota 

Supreme Court held that a state statute defining marriage as a union between 

persons of the opposite sex did not violate the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Baker, 191 N.W.2d at 185–86. 

However, Supreme Court decisions since Baker reflect significant “doctrinal 

developments” concerning the constitutionality of prohibiting same-sex 

relationships. See Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1204–05 (10th Cir. 2014). As 

the Tenth Circuit noted in Kitchen, “[t]wo landmark decisions by the Supreme 

Court”, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), 

and United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013), “have 

undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker is insubstantial.” 755 

F.3d at 1205. Lawrence held that the government could not lawfully “demean 

[homosexuals'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual 

conduct a crime.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574, 123 S.Ct. 2472. In Windsor, the 

Supreme Court struck down the federal definition of marriage as being between a 

man and a woman because, when applied to legally married same-sex couples, it 

“demean[ed] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.” 

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 10
5

Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694. In doing so, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which expressly held that 

Baker did not foreclose review of the federal marriage definition. Windsor v. United 

States, 699 F.3d 169, 178–80 (2d Cir.2012) (“Even if Baker might have had 

resonance ... in 1971, it does not today.”). 

Although the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet determined the 

issue, several federal courts of appeals that have considered Baker's impact in the 

wake of Lawrence and Windsor have concluded that Baker does not bar a federal 

court from considering the constitutionality of a state's ban on same-sex marriage. 

See, e.g., Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014); Kitchen, 755 F.3d 1193 

(10th Cir.2014); Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, 766 

F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014); Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014). Numerous 

lower federal courts also have questioned whether Baker serves as binding precedent 

following the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor. This Court has the benefit of 

reviewing the decisions of all of these other courts. “[A] significant majority of courts 

have found that Baker is no longer controlling in light of the doctrinal developments 

of the last 40 years.” Jernigan v. Crane, 2014 WL 6685391, *13 (E.D. Ark. 2014) 

(citing Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, 2014 WL 6386903, at *6–7 n. 5 (D.S.D. Nov.14, 

2014) (collecting cases that have called Baker into doubt)). The Court notes that the 

Sixth Circuit recently concluded that Baker is still binding precedent in DeBoer v. 

Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), but finds the reasoning of the Fourth, Seventh, 

Ninth, and Tenth Circuits to be more persuasive on the question and concludes that 

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 10
6

Baker does not preclude consideration of the questions presented herein.1 Thus, the 

Court first addresses the merits of Plaintiffs’ Due Process and Equal Protection 

claims, as those claims provide the most appropriate analytical framework. And if 

equal protection analysis decides this case, there is no need to address the Full Faith 

and Credit claim.

Rational basis review applies to an equal protection analysis unless Alabama’s 

laws affect a suspect class of individuals or significantly interfere with a 

fundamental right. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388, 98S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 

618 (1978). Although a strong argument can be made that classification based on 

sexual orientation is suspect, Eleventh Circuit precedence holds that such 

classification is not suspect. Lofton v. Secretary of Dep’t. of Children and Family 

Services, 358 F.3d 804, 818 (11th Cir. 2004)/ The post-Windsor landscape may 

ultimately change the view expressed in Lofton, however no clear majority of 

Justices in Windsor stated that sexual orientation was a suspect category.

Laws that implicate fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and will 

survive constitutional analysis only if narrowly tailored to a compelling government 

interest. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301–02, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). 

Careful review of the parties’ briefs and the substantial case law on the subject

persuades the Court that the institution of marriage itself is a fundamental right 

 1 This court also notes that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the DeBoer 

case, Bourke v. Bashear , __ S.Ct.__, 2015 WL 213651 (U.S. January 16, 2015), 

limiting review to these two questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment require a state 

to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? and 2) Does the 14th 

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? The 

questions raised in this lawsuit will thus be definitively decided by the end of the 

current Supreme Court term, regardless of today’s holding by this court.

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 6 of 10
7

protected by the Constitution, and that the State must therefore convince the Court 

that its laws restricting the fundamental right to marry serve a compelling state 

interest. 

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal 

rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” and women. Loving 

v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). Numerous cases 

have recognized marriage as a fundamental right, describing it as a right of liberty, 

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), of privacy, 

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), 

and of association, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 

473 (1996). “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a 

person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are 

central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Planned Parenthood 

of SE Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992).

“Under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, interference with 

a fundamental right warrants the application of strict scrutiny.” Bostic v. Schaefer, 

760 F.3d 352, 375(4th Cir. 2014). Strict scrutiny “entail[s] a most searching 

examination” and requires “the most exact connection between justification and 

classification.” Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 270, 123 S.Ct. 2411, 156 L.Ed.2d 257 

(2003) (internal quotations omitted). Under this standard, the defendant “cannot 

rest upon a generalized assertion as to the classification's relevance to its goals.” 

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 500, 109 S.Ct. 706, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 

(1989). “The purpose of the narrow tailoring requirement is to ensure that the 

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 7 of 10
8

means chosen fit the compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility 

that the motive for the classification was illegitimate.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 

306, 333, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003).

Defendant contends that Alabama has a legitimate interest in protecting the 

ties between children and their biological parents and other biological kin.2

However, the Court finds that the laws in question are not narrowly tailored to fulfill 

the reported interest. The Attorney General does not explain how allowing or 

recognizing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults will prevent 

heterosexual parents or other biological kin from caring for their biological children. 

He proffers no justification for why it is that the provisions in question single out 

same-sex couples and prohibit them, and them alone, from marrying in order to meet 

that goal. Alabama does not exclude from marriage any other couples who are either 

unwilling or unable to biologically procreate. There is no law prohibiting infertile 

couples, elderly couples, or couples who do not wish to procreate from marrying. Nor 

does the state prohibit recognition of marriages between such couples from other 

states. The Attorney General fails to demonstrate any rational, much less 

 2 Although Defendant seems to hang his hat on the biological parent-child bond 

argument, Defendant hints that this is one of many state interests justifying the 

laws in question and some of his arguments could be construed to assert additional 

state interests that have commonly been proffered in similar cases. The court finds 

that these other interests also do not constitute compelling state interests. See

Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding that the following interests 

neither individually nor collectively constitute a compelling state interest for 

recognizing same-sex marriages: (1) the State’s federalism-based interest in 

maintaining control over the definition of marriage within its borders, (2) the history 

and tradition of opposite-sex marriage, (3) protecting the institution of marriage, (4) 

encouraging responsible procreation, and (5) promoting the optimal childrearing 

environment.).

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 8 of 10
9

compelling, link between its prohibition and non-recognition of same-sex marriage 

and its goal of having more children raised in the biological family structure the 

state wishes to promote. There has been no evidence presented that these marriage 

laws have any effect on the choices of couples to have or raise children, whether they 

are same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples. In sum, the laws in question are an 

irrational way of promoting biological relationships in Alabama. Kitchen, 755 F.3d 

at 1222 (“As between non-procreative opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples, we 

can discern no meaningful distinction with respect to appellants’ interest in fostering 

biological reproduction within marriages.”).

If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal 

of promoting optimal environments for children. Those children currently being 

raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and 

recognition by the State as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents. 

Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same 

reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the 

children of same-sex couples. Such a law “humiliates [ ] thousands of children now 

being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult 

for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its 

concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, 

133 S.Ct. at 2694. Alabama’s prohibition and non-recognition of same-sex marriage 

“also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples.” id. at 2695, because it 

denies the families of these children a panoply of benefits that the State and the 

federal government offer to families who are legally wed. Additionally, these laws 

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 9 of 10
10

further injures those children of all couples who are themselves gay or lesbian, and 

who will grow up knowing that Alabama does not believe they are as capable of 

creating a family as their heterosexual friends.

For all of these reasons, the court finds that Alabama’s marriage laws violate 

the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

to the United States Constitution.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 

21), is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docs. 47), is 

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and 

ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process 

Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is enjoined from enforcing 

those laws.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 10 of 10