Court Opinion

ID: 9800531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:21:47.856806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:00.284662
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Plaintiffs made an unusual decision in this case.1 They challenged only the constitutional amendment concerning same-gender marriage. Okla. Const, art. II, § 35. They ignored the earlier-enacted statutory provisions which define and only recognize marriage as between persons of opposite gender. Okla. Stat. tit. 43, §§ 3(A), 3.1. They also sued the wrong defendant when it comes to non-recognition of out-of-state same-gender marriages; the clerk has no occasion to pass on the validity of out-of-state marriages. The district court noticed both of these problems, yet entered an injunction concerning the constitutional amendment’s definition of marriage. See Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1296 (N.D.Okla.2014); Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(1)(C) (requiring specificity in injunctions).
I concur with the court that the Barton couple lacks standing to challenge the nonrecognition provision, but I differ on whether the “law of the case” applies. I dissent from this court’s conclusion that the Plaintiffs have standing even though they did not challenge the underlying statutes. Thus, I would not reach the merits for lack of standing. As I have not persuaded my colleagues, were I to reach the merits of the Bishop couple’s claim, I would dissent from this court’s conclusion that Oklahoma’s definition of marriage is invalid because marriage is a fundamental right and the State’s classification cannot survive strict scrutiny. Instead, I would apply rational basis review and uphold Oklahoma’s definition of marriage.
A. Standing — Failure to Challenge the Underlying Statutes
Plaintiffs (Bishop couple) failed to challenge Oklahoma’s statutory requirement concerning “Who may marry” which provides:
Any unmarried person who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and not otherwise disqualified is capable of contracting and consenting to marriage with a person of the opposite sex.
Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3(A). The district court was aware of the statutory prohibition and stated that no party addressed the “standing problems,” but was satisfied that enjoining section A of the constitutional provision “redresses a concrete injury suffered by the Bishop couple.” Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1259 n. 2, 1274 n. 19, 1279, 1296.
Section A provides:
Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
*1110Okla. Const, art. II, § 35(A). Section C adds criminal liability for non-compliance. Id. § 35(C). No matter how important the issue, a federal court must consider standing, including whether the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2661, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013).
Plaintiffs (Barton couple) failed to challenge Oklahoma’s statutory non-recognition requirement which provides:
A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.
Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3.1. The constitutional non-recognition provision is the same. Okla. Const, art. II, § 35(B). The district court correctly observed that any injury from nonrecognition comes from both of these provisions. Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1266.
Enjoining section A of the constitutional amendment would not solve the Bishop couple’s problem because the statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3(A), contemplates “marriage with a person of the opposite sex.” Enjoining section B of the constitutional amendment would not solve the Barton couple’s problem because the statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3. 1, proscribes the same thing: recognition of same-gender marriages from other states.
According to this court, the statutory provisions are not enforceable independent of the constitutional provisions. But that cannot be right. In Oklahoma, marriage arises out of contract and requires consent by legally competent parties. Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 1. Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3(A) imposes several requirements including being (1) unmarried, (2) at least age 18, and (3) not otherwise disqualified, for the capacity to contract and consent to opposite gender marriage. The constitutional provision defines marriage as one man and one woman and also provides a rule of construction for the constitution and “any other provision of law.” Okla. Const, art. II, § 35(A). Although the non-recognition provisions have identical language, one would not presume that the electorate would engage in a useless act. If anything, the language in the constitutional provisions suggests an intent to augment the statutory provisions, as was done in other states. See Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1283-84 (suggesting sentiment to create an independent bar); see also supra n. 1. Indeed, that is the argument of the State. Aplt. Br. 33.
The most serious problem with this court’s analysis is that it is derived from cases where provisions conflict; it would be an extravagant reading to conclude that Oklahoma is not empowered to enact a consistent and clarifying constitutional provision without replacing the statutory provision. The rule stated in Fent v. Henry, 257 P.3d 984 (Okla.2011), that a constitutional amendment “takes the place of all former laws existing upon the subject with which it deals,”
rests upon the principle that when it is apparent from the framework of the revision that whatever is embraced in the new law shall control and whatever is excluded is discarded, decisive evidence exists of an intention to prescribe the latest provisions as the only ones on that subject which shall be obligatory.
Id. at 992 n. 20. We have no such “decisive evidence” in this case because there is no “framework of revision” when the constitutional amendment in no way contradicts the statutes. Although this court contends that the constitutional amendment is “a complete scheme,” Lankford v. Menefee, 45 Okla. 228, 145 P. 375, 376 (1914), concerning same-gender marriage, the amendment certainly does not replace the other marriage qualifications contained in Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3(A). Nor should it replace *1111the qualification “with a person of the opposite sex.” Of course, the most important canon of construction must be fidelity to the intent of the electorate and its representatives: a canon that is not well-served by disregarding Oklahoma’s statutes and focusing only on the amendment. This court’s argument that it can envision no scenario where the clerk could enforce the statute but not the amendment fails to appreciate the independent and complementary nature of the provisions.
Invalidating state law provisions as vio-lative of the Constitution is one of the most serious tasks performed by a federal court. Though the Plaintiffs apparently thought otherwise, state statutes do matter. Plaintiffs, who have the burden on standing, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992), cannot show redressability.
B. Law of the Case
The district court was correct in concluding that the Barton couple lacks standing to challenge the non-recognition constitutional provision. See Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1272-73. This court concludes that the law of the case doctrine extended to this challenge, and the court clerk would have been the proper defendant but for changed circumstances, i.e., the affidavit of the court clerk. The law of the case doctrine does not apply. The court clerk’s duties are ministerial, and she has no authority to recognize out-of-state marriages. See Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 5(B)(1) (listing the duties of the clerk). The Barton couple concede that they never asked the court clerk to recognize their California license.
The law of the case doctrine is one of discretion, not power, and applies only to issues actually decided. Pepper v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1250-51, 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011). The issue actually decided in the prior appeal of this case, Bishop I, was that the Attorney General and the Governor were not proper defendants. Bishop v. Oklahoma, 333 Fed.Appx. 361, 365 (10th Cir.2009). We stated:
The Couples claim they desire to be married but are prevented from doing so, or they are married but the marriage is not recognized in Oklahoma. These claims are simply not connected to the duties of the Attorney General or the Governor. Marriage licenses are issued, fees collected, and the licenses recorded by the district court clerks. See Okla. Stat. tit. 28, § 31; Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 5. “[A] district court clerk is ‘judicial personnel’ and is an arm of the court whose duties are ministerial, except for those discretionary duties provided by statute. In the performance of [a] clerk’s ministerial functions, the court clerk is subject to the control of the Supreme Court and the supervisory control that it has passed down to the Administrative District Judge in the clerk’s administrative district.” Speight v. Presley, 203 P.3d 173, 177 (Okla.2008). Because recognition of marriages is within the administration of the judiciary, the executive branch of Oklahoma’s government has no authority to issue a marriage license or record a marriage.
Id. at 365 (alterations in original). We stressed that the problem was “the alleged injury to the Couples could not be caused by any action of the Oklahoma officials” named. Id. In noting that Plaintiffs never sought an injunction, we stressed that the Plaintiffs never identified “any action” that would be taken by those officials, that they “act or refrain from acting.” Id. at 365 n. 6.
Merely because we described the Plaintiffs’ two claims at the beginning of the passage cannot alter the import of what follows. No reasonable reading results in a conclusion that the court clerk was a *1112proper defendant for a challenge to the amendment’s non-recognition provision. The only functions mentioned are issuance of a license, collection of fees, and recording a license. As stated by the district court: “The Bishop couple has proven standing because they sought an Oklahoma marriage license from Smith, Smith denied them such license, and Smith did so based upon their status as a same-sex couple. Unlike with Part B, the Bishop couple has clearly demonstrated Smith’s connection to their injury.” Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1274. Here, the Barton couple had the burden to show that the court clerk had some authority over the nonrecognition provision and that their injuries are fairly traceable to her. Cressman v. Thompson, 719 F.3d 1139, 1145-46 (10th Cir.2013); Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1109-10 (10th Cir.2007).
Nothing in Bishop I remotely suggested that the court clerk was the proper defendant for any challenge. To the contrary, the panel discussed the clerk’s authority and that “recognition of marriages is within the administration of the judiciary.” Bishop, 333 Fed.Appx. at 365. Moreover, the panel in Bishop I relied heavily on Bronson. Bronson stressed that a plaintiff must establish that this defendant caused the injury, and an injunction against this defendant would provide relief. 500 F.3d at 1111-12. Merely because the clerk is considered judicial personnel and has ministerial power over some aspects of marriage cannot change the fact that she has no power to recognize out-of-state marriages. The district court’s analysis is consistent with the care this court has taken in the past with standing. See Cressman, 719 F.3d at 1145-47; Bronson, 500 F.3d at 1111-12. The standing problem is of the Barton couple’s own making: as this court notes, Plaintiffs could very easily have sought to file a state tax return and then sued the responsible official were they not allowed.
In summary, I would hold that the Barton and Bishop couples lack standing because they failed to challenge Oklahoma’s statutes which must be respected as an independent bar to relief. I agree with the court that the Barton couple lacks standing because they sued the wrong defendant — one with no power to recognize their out-of-state marriage. As I have not persuaded my colleagues on the definition of marriage claim, I proceed to its merits.
C. Merits
I adhere to my views in Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1230-31, 2014 WL 2868044, at *33 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014) (Kelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Same-gender marriage is a public policy choice for the states, and should not be driven by a uniform, judge-made fundamental rights analysis. At a time when vigorous public debate is defining policies concerning sexual orientation, this court has intervened with a view of marriage ostensibly driven by the Constitution. Unfortunately, this approach short-circuits the healthy political processes leading to a rough consensus on matters of sexual autonomy, and marginalizes those of good faith who draw the line short of same-gender marriage.
Essentially, relying upon substantive due process, this court has “deduced [a right] from abstract concepts of personal autonomy” rather than anchoring it to this country’s history and legal traditions concerning marriage. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 725, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). When it comes to deciding whether a state has violated a fundamental right to marriage, the substantive due process analysis must consider the history, legal tradition, and practice of the institution. Id. at 721, 117 S.Ct. 2258. Although Plaintiffs remind us history and tradition are not necessarily *1113determinative, Aplee. Br. 65, Oklahoma’s efforts to retain its definition of marriage are benign, and very much unlike race-based restrictions on marriage invalidated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967).
This court’s fundamental rights analysis turns largely on certain “personal aspects” of marriage including the “emotional support and public commitment” inherent in the historically accepted definition of marriage. Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1210-13, 2014 WL 2868044, at *14-15 (relying on Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)). But analyzing marriage primarily as the public recognition of an emotional union is an ahistorical understanding of marriage. Western marriage has historically included elements besides emotional support and public commitment, including (1) exclusivity, (2) monogamy, (3) non-familial pairs, and (4) gender complementarity, distinct from procreation. Not surprisingly, this historical understanding and practice is the basis for much of state law. The core marital norms throughout Oklahoma’s history have included these elements. See Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 201 (obligation of fidelity); Okla. Const, art. I, § 2 (prohibiting polygamy); Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3(C) (prohibiting incestuous marriage); Okla. Const, art. II, § 35(A) (defining marriage as “the union of one man and one woman”); Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 3(A) (marriage qualifications for opposite-gender marriage).
Plaintiffs essentially argue that the scope of the right is unlimited. Aplee. Br. 65. In Kitchen, this court accepted a similar argument: that the definition of marriage cannot be determined by who has historically been denied access to the right. See Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1215-16, 2014 WL 2868044 at *18. But the definition of marriage plays an important role in determining what relationships are recognized in the first place. Polygamous and incestuous relationships have not qualified for marriage because they do not satisfy the elements of monogamy and non-familial pairs, regardless of the individual status of the parties (who have historically been denied access to the right). Thus, the traditional elements of marriage have determined the relationships that have been recognized, not the other way around.
This court shortchanges the analysis of whether the fundamental right to marriage includes same-gender couples by asserting, “[o]ne might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage.” Id. at 1216, 2014 WL 2868044, at *19; accord Aplee. Br. 66. But, as far as I can tell, no one in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), could have argued that racial homogeneity was an essential element of marriage. Here, the limitation on marriage is derived from the fundamental elements of marriage, elements not implicated in invalidating marriage restrictions on inmates (Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)) or fathers with support obligations (Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978)).
Simply put, none of the Supreme Court cases suggest a definition of marriage so at odds with historical understanding. The Court has been vigilant in striking down impermissible constraints on the right to marriage, but there is nothing in the earlier cases suggesting that marriage has historically been defined as only an emotional union among willing adults. Removing gender complementarity from the historical definition of marriage is simply contrary to the careful analysis prescribed by the Supreme Court when it comes to substantive due process. Absent a fundamental right, traditional rational basis equal *1114protection principles should apply, and apparently as a majority of this panel believes,2 the Plaintiffs cannot prevail on that basis. Thus, any change in the definition of marriage rightly belongs to the people of Oklahoma, not a federal court.
APPENDIX A
27 SCHOLARS OF FEDERALISM AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
Attorneys on the Brief: Anthony T. Caso, John C. Eastman, D. John Sauer
46 EMPLOYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING EMPLOYERS
Attorneys on the Brief: Meghan Bailey, Susan Baker Manning, John V. McDer-mott, Lauren Schmidt, Margaret Sheer, Michael Louis Whitlock
57 OTHER FAMILY LAW PROFESSORS
Attorneys on the Brief: Rita F. Lin, Laura W. Weissbein
93 INDIVIDUAL FAITH LEADERS IN OKLAHOMA AND UTAH
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
9T05, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
ACLU OF OKLAHOMA
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R.
Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
ACLU OF UTAH
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
AFFIRMATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
ALDRICH, JOHN
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
ALL SOULS UNITARIAN CHURCH OF TULSA
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
ALLEN, DOUGLAS W.
Attorneys on the Brief: David C. Walker
ALVARE, HELEN M.
Attorneys on the Brief: Richard D. White
AMBROSE, DOUGLAS
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiessel, John M. Mejia
AMERICAN LEADERSHIP FUND
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
*1115AMERICAN MILITARY PARTNER ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Abbe David Lowell, Christopher Dowden Man
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Nathalie FP. Gilfoyle, Paul March Smith
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Mark A. Lightner, Andrew P. Meiser, Andra Troy
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
ANDERSON, JANNA
Attorneys on the Brief: Dani Hartvig-sen
ANDERSON, RYAN
Attorneys on the Brief: Michael Francis Smith
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
Attorneys on the Brief: Cheryl R. Dra-zin, Steven M. Freeman, Seth M. Mar-nin, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
API EQUALITY-LA
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE, ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE-ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE, LOS ANGELES
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE-CHICAGO
Attorneys on the .Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
AUSTIN LGBT BAR ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
BARDAGLIO, PETER
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
BASCH, NORMA
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Attorneys on the Brief: Erie C. Rass-bach, Asma Tasnim Uddin
BELTRAN, LYNN
Attorneys on the Brief: Jacob Harris Hupart, Jaren Janghorbani, Robert A. Kaplan, Joshua Kaye, Alan B. Morrison
BELZ, HERMAN
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
BEND THE ARC: A JEWISH PARTNERSHIP FOR JUSTICE
*1116Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
BENNE, ROBERT D.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
BLAIR, MARIANNE
Attorneys on the Brief: Rita F. Lin, Laura W. Weissbein
BOWLER, SHAUN
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
BOYLE, DAVID
Attorneys on the Brief: David Boyle
CAIN, BRUCE
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
CALIFORNIA
Attorneys on the Brief: Kamala D. Harris, Peter Sacks
CAMP FIRE GREEN COUNTRY, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Christy L. Anderson, Sarah Elizabeth April, Kathryn R. DeBord, Stephen D. Gurr
CARBADO, DEVON
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
CARLSON, ALLAN C.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
CARROLL, JASON S.
Attorneys on the Brief: Lynn Dennis Wardle
CATHEDRAL OF HOPE OF OKLAHOMA CITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
CATO INSTITUTE
Attorneys on the Brief: Ilya Shapiro, Elizabeth B. Wydra
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE
Attorneys on the Brief: Anthony T. Caso, John C. Eastman, D. John Sauer
CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
CHRISTENSEN, LAVAR
Attorneys on the Brief: Robert Theron Smith
CHURCH OF THE OPEN ARMS OF OKLAHOMA CITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
CHURCH OF THE RESTORATION OF TULSA
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
CIMARRON ALLIANCE
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
CLAYTON, CORNELL W.
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
COLAGE
Attorneys on the Brief: Christy L. Anderson, Sarah Elizabeth April, Kathryn R. DeBord, Stephen D. Gurr
COLORADO GAY LESBIAN BISEXUAL TRANSGENDER (GLBT) BAR ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
COLORADO WOMEN’S BAR ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
*1117CONGREGATION KOLAMI OF SALT LAKE CITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
CONNECTICUT
Attorneys on the Brief: George Jepsen, Peter Sacks
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER
Attorneys on the Brief: Shapiro Ilya, Elizabeth B. Wydra
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS
Attorneys on the Brief: Lori Ann Alvino McGill, Geoffrey R. Stone
COONTZ, STEPHANIE
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
COTT, NANCY
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
COVENANT NETWORK OF PRESBYTERIANS
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
COX, DUANE MORLEY
Attorneys on the Brief: Duane Morley Cox
CURTIS, G.M.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
DELAWARE
Attorneys on the Brief: Joseph R. Biden III, Peter Sacks
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Attorneys on the Brief: Irvin B. Nathan, Peter Sacks
DITZ, TOBY L.
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
DOLOVICH, SHARON
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
DUBLER, ARIELA R.
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
EDWARDS, LAURA F.
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
EGGEBEEN, DAVID J.
Attorneys on the Brief: David C. Walker
EMERGENCY INFANT SERVICES
Attorneys on the Brief: Christy L. Anderson, Sarah Elizabeth April, Kathryn R. DeBord, Stephen D. Gurr
EMERSON, MICHAEL O.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF UTAH
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
EPWORTH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF OKLAHOMA CITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
EQUALITY UTAH
Attorneys on the Brief: Troy L. Booher, Clifford J. Rosky, Noella A. Sudbury, Michael D. Zimmerman
FAMILY EQUALITY COUNCIL
*1118Attorneys on the Brief: Christy L. Anderson, Sarah Elizabeth April, Kathryn R. DeBord, Stephen D. Gurr
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
Attorneys on the Brief: Paul Benjamin Linton
FELLOWSHIP CONGREGATIONAL UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST OF TULSA
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF OKLAHOMA CITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
FLUKE, CHARLES
Attorneys on the Brief: Jacob Harris Hupart, Jaren Janghorbani, Robert A. Kaplan, Joshua Kaye, Alan B. Morrison
FREEDOM TO MARRY
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
FRIENDS FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER CONCERNS
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS
Attorneys on the Brief: Felicia H. Ells-worth, Mark C. Fleming, Leah M. Lit-man, Dina Bernick Mishra, Kenneth Lee Salazar, Alan E. Schoenfeld, Paul Rein-herz Wolfson
GEORGE, ROBERT P.
Attorneys on the Brief: Michael Francis Smith
GEORGE, TIMOTHY
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar GIRGIS, SHERIF
Attorneys on the Brief: Michael Francis Smith
GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ADVANCING LGBT EQUALITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicholas M. O’Donnell
GROSSBERG, MICHAEL
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
HADASSAH, THE WOMEN’S ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
HAIDER-MARKEL, DONALD P.
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
HARTOG, HENDRIK
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
HAWKINS, ALAN J.
Attorneys on the Brief: Lynn Dennis Wardle
HAYASHI, SCOTT
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
HERMAN, ELLEN
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
HERO, RODNEY
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Biek-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
HISPANIC NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
*1119Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
HISTORIANS OF ANTIGAY DISCRIMINATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Katie D. Fair-child, Madeline H. Gitomer, Jessica Black Livingston, Katherine A. Nelson, Aaron M. Paul, Erica Knievel Songer, Catherine Emily Stetson, Mary Helen Wimberly
HODES, MARTHA
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
HOLLINGER, JOAN HEIFETZ
Attorneys on the Brief: Rita F. Lin, Laura W. Weissbein
HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
Attorneys on the Brief: David Scott Flugman
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
HUNTER, NAN D.
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
ILLINOIS
Attorneys on the Brief: Lisa Madigan, Peter Sacks
INTERFAITH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
INTERFAITH ALLIANCE OF COLORADO
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
IOWA
Attorneys on the Brief: Tom Miller, Peter Sacks
JAMES, HAROLD
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
JEWISH SOCIAL POLICY ACTION NETWORK
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
JOHNSON, BYRON R.
Attorneys on the Brief: David C. Walker
JOSLIN, COURTNEY
Attorneys on the Brief: Rita F. Lin, Laura W. Weissbein
JUSTICE, STEVEN
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar KERBER, LINDA K.
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
KESHET
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
KESSLER-HARRIS, ALICE
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
KOONS, ROBERT C.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
KURTZ, STANLEY
*1120Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Jennifer C. Pizer, Susan Sommer, Camilla Taylor, Kenneth D. Upton
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
LEE, TAEKU
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
LEGAL MOMENTUM
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
LEGAL VOICE
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
LEVI, MARGARET
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
LEWIS, GREGORY B.
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
LGBT & ALLIED LAWYERS OF UTAH BAR ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
LIBERTY COUNSEL, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Anita Staver, Mathew D. Staver
LITTLETON, CHRISTINE A.
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
LOVE HONOR CHERISH
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD
Attorneys on the Brief: Anthony T. Caso, Alexander Dushku, Richard Shawn Gunnarson, Justin W. Starr
MAINE
Attorneys on the Brief: Janet T. Mills, Peter Sacks
MARRIAGE EQUALITY USA
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
MARTINEZ-EBERS, VALERIE
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
MARYLAND
Attorneys on the Brief: Douglas F. Gan-sler, Peter Sacks
MASSACHUSETTS
Attorneys on the Brief: Martha Coak-ley, Michelle L. Leung, Jonathan B. Miller, Genevieve C. Nadeau, Peter Sacks
MAY, ELAINE TYLER
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
MAYERI, SERENA
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
MAYFLOWER CONGREGATIONAL UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST OF OKLAHOMA CITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
MCCANN, MICHAEL
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
MCDERMOTT, GERALD R.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
MCHUGH, PAUL
*1121Attorneys on the Brief: Gerard Vincent Bradley, Kevin Trent Snider
MCIFF, KAY
Attorneys on the Brief: Robert Theron Smith
METHODIST FEDERATION FOR SOCIAL ACTION
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
MINNESOTA LAVENDER BAR ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
MINTZ, STEVE
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
MOORE, RUSSELL
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Kurt M. Denk, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
MORMONS FOR EQUALITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
MT. TABOR LUTHERAN CHURCH OF SALT LAKE CITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
NAACP SALT LAKE BRANCH & NAACP TRI STATE CONFERENCE OF IDAHO, NEVADA AND UTAH
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John M. Mejia
NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Stephen M. Crampton, Mary Elizabeth McAlister
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS
Attorneys on the Brief: Alexander Dushku, Richard Shawn Gunnarson, Anthony R. Piearello, Justin W. Starr
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN FOUNDATION
*1122Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
NEHIRIM
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
NELSON, MERRILL
Attorneys on the Brief: Robert Theron Smith
NERO, NICHOLAS
Attorneys on the Brief: Jacob Harris Hupart, Jaren Janghorbani, Robert A. Kaplan, Joshua Kaye, Alan B. Morrison
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Attorneys on the Brief: Joseph A. Foster, Peter Sacks
NEW MEXICO
Attorneys on the Brief: Gary K. King, Peter Sacks
NEW MEXICO LESBIAN AND GAY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
NEW YORK
Attorneys on the Brief: Peter Sacks, Eric T. Schneiderman
O’GRADY, CLAUDIA
Attorneys on the Brief: Jacob Harris Hupart, Jaren Janghorbani, Robert A. Kaplan, Joshua Kaye, Alan B. Morrison
OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW OUTLAWS
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
OKLAHOMANS FOR EQUALITY
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
OREGON
Attorneys on the Brief: Ellen F. Rosen-blum, Peter Sacks
OUTSERVE-SLDN
Attorneys on the Brief: Abbe David Lowell, Christopher Dowden Man
PAKALUK, CATHERINE R.
Attorneys on the Brief: David C. Walker
PAQUETTE, ROBERT
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS AND GAYS, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Andrew John Davis, Jiyun Cameron Lee
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
PLECK, ELIZABETH
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
POLIKOFF, NANCY
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
PRESBYTERIAN WELCOME
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Kurt M. Denk, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
PRICE, JOSEPH
*1123Attorneys on the Brief: David C. Walker
PUBLIC ADVOCATES, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
QLAW-THE GLBT BAR ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
RAHE, PAUL A.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
RECONCILING MINISTRIES NETWORK
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
RECONCILINGWORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULL PARTICIPATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Kurt M. Denk, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL COLLEGE
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
REGNERUS, MARK D.
Attorneys on the Brief: David C. Walker
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
REYNOLDS, MICHAEL A.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
RHODE ISLAND
Attorneys on the Brief: Peter F. Kil-martin, Peter Sacks
ROVIG, STANFORD
Attorneys on the Brief: Jacob Harris Hupart, Jaren Janghorbani, Robert A. Kaplan, Joshua Kaye, Alan B. Morrison
SCHULTZ, VICKI
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
SEARS, BRAD
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
SEGURA, GARY
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
SHAMMAS, CAROLE
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
SHANLEY, MARY
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
SHERRILL, KENNETH
Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
SHIFFRIN, SEANA
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
SIKH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
SMITH, CHARLES ANTHONY
*1124Attorneys on the Brief: Mark William Mosier, Jennifer Schwartz
SNOW, LOWRY
Attorneys on the Brief: Robert Theron Smith
SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC JUDAISM
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
SOUTH ASIAN AMERICANS LEADING TOGETHER
Attorneys on the Brief Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
SOUTHWEST WOMEN’S LAW CENTER
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
ST. STEPHEN’S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF NORMAN, OKLAHOMA
Attorneys on the Brief Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
STANLEY, AMY DRU
Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
STATE OF ALABAMA
Attorneys on the Brief: Thomas Molnar Fisher, Luther Strange
STATE OF ALASKA
Attorneys on the Brief: Thomas Molnar Fisher, Michael C. Geraghty
STATE OF ARIZONA
Attorneys on the Brief: Thomas Molnar Fisher, Thomas C. Horne
STATE OF COLORADO
Attorneys on the Brief: Thomas Molnar Fisher, John Suthers
STATE OF IDAHO
Attorneys on the Brief: Thomas Molnar Fisher, Lawrence G. Wasden
STATE OF INDIANA
Attorneys on the Brief: Thomas Molnar Fisher, Gregory F. Zoeller
STATE OF KANSAS
Attorneys on the Brief: Jeffrey A. Cha-nay, Bryan Charles Clark
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Attorneys on the Brief: Aaron Lind-strom, Bernard Eric Restuccia, Bill Schuette
STATE OF MONTANA
Attorneys on the Brief Thomas Molnar Fisher, Timothy C. Fox
STATE OF NEBRASKA
Attorneys on the Brief: Jon Bruning, Thomas Molnar Fisher
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Attorneys on the Brief: Thomas Molnar Fisher, E. Scott Pruitt
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Attorneys on the Brief: Thomas Molnar Fisher, Alan Wilson
STONEWALL BAR ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
STONEWALL BAR ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
STONEWALL LAW ASSOCIATION OF GREATER HOUSTON
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
STRAUB, D’ARCY WINSTON
Attorneys on the Brief: D’Arey Winston Straub
THE CENTER FOR URBAN RENEWAL AND EDUCATION
*1125Attorneys on the Brief: Stephen Kent Ehat
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Attorneys on the Brief: Alexander Dushku, Richard Shawn Gunnarson, Anthony R. Picarello, Justin W. Starr
THE COALITION OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN PASTORS USA
Attorneys on the Brief: Stephen Kent Ehat
THE EQUALITY NETWORK
Attorneys on the Brief: Joshua A. Block, Leah Farrell, Brady R. Henderson, Ryan D. Kiesel, John Mejia
THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
Attorneys on the Brief: Alexander Dushku, Richard Shawn Gunnarson, Anthony R. Picarello, Justin W. Starr
THE FREDERICK DOUGLASS FOUNDATION, INC.
Attorneys on the Brief: Stephen Kent Ehat
THE OUTLAWS
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
THE UTAH PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle, Paul March Smith
TRINITY CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF EDMOND, OKLAHOMA
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
TRUAH: THE RABBINIC CALL FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
UNITED CHURCH OF NORMAN, OKLAHOMA
Attorneys on the Brief: Kurt M. Denk, Jason M. Moff, Norman C. Simon, Jeffrey S. Trachtman
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Attorneys on the Brief: Alexander Dushku, Richard Shawn Gunnarson, Anthony R. Picarello, Justin W. Starr
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF LAW LEGAL GROUP FOR BUILDING TOLERANCE AND ACCEPTANCE
Attorneys on the Brief: Nicole Susan Phillis, Jerome Cary Roth
UPHAM, DAVID R.
Attorneys on the Brief: David Robert Upham
UTAH PRIDE CENTER
Attorneys on the Brief: Clifford J. Ro-sky, Noella A. Sudbury, Michael D. Zimmerman
VERMONT
Attorneys on the Brief: Peter Sacks, William H. Sorrell
WASHINGTON
Attorneys on the Brief: Robert W. Ferguson, Peter Sacks
WELKE, BARBARA
*1126Attorneys on the Brief: Orly Degani, Daniel McNeel Lane, Matthew E. Pepping
WESTERN REPUBLICANS
Attorneys on the Brief: Stacy A. Carpenter, Bennett L. Cohen, Jon R. De-don, Sean Robert Gallagher
WILKEN, ROBERT LOUIS
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
WINKLER, ADAM
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
WOLFE, CHRISTOPHER
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
WOMEN OF REFORM JUDAISM
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
WOMEN’S LAW PROJECT
Attorneys on the Brief: Marcia D. Greenberger, Cortelyou Kenney, Emily Martin
WOMEN’S LEAGUE FOR CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM
Attorneys on the Brief: Samual P. Bick-ett, Rebecca Harlow, Idin Kashefipour, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai
WOOD, PETER W.
Attorneys on the Brief: Frank D. Mylar
WORTHAM, DOUGLAS
Attorneys on the Brief: Jacob Harris Hupart, Jaren Janghorbani, Robert A. Kaplan, Joshua Kaye, Alan B. Morrison

. See, e.g., Wotf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 986-87, 1027-28 (W.D.Wis.2014) (challenging marriage amendment and statutes; injunction prohibits enforcement of both); Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-00482,-F.Supp.3d --,-, -, 2014 WL 1909999, at *3, *29 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014) (same).

. Though this court disclaims an opinion, Judge Holmes’ concurrence strongly suggests that the amendment would survive rational basis review. According to the concurrence, Oklahoma’s amendment (1) is limited to a single institution: marriage, (2) is supported by history, legal precedent, and statutory enactments dating back to 1973, (3) does not divest anyone of a pre-existing right, (4) should be viewed as the product of the goodwill of one million Oklahomans, and (5) is consistent with the State's police power, unlike the federal intrusion into marriage at issue in United States v. Windsor, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013).