On January 6, 2014, four couples filed a federal lawsuit seeking to end Arizona’s ban on homosexual marriage. The suit names as defendants: Jan Brewer (Arizona’s Governor), Thomas Horne (Arizona’s Attorney General), and Michael Jeanes (Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona), each in their official capacities as agents of the State of Arizona.
The Couples.
The four couples consisted of the following persons:
(1) Joseph Connoly and Terrel Pochert – Joe and Terry met in Michigan in 1995 and moved to Arizona in 1997. They have been in Arizona since that time, living together as life partners. The couple currently lives in Pinal County, Arizona. In 2008, after California briefly legalized same sex-marriages (prior to the passage of Proposition 8), Joe and Terry went to California and got married. But Arizona does not recognize that marriage.
(2) Suzanne Cummins and Holly Mitchell – Suzanne and Holly live in Maricopa County, Arizona. The couple has been in a committed relationship since 2007. The two act as foster parents to an 18-month-old child. Suzanne adopted two children that the couple raise as their own. Only Suzanne was able to adopt, because Arizona’s laws made it extremely difficult for both to adopt the children.
(3) Clark Rowley and David Chaney – Clark and David live in Maricopa County, Arizona and have been in a committed relationship for over five years. The couple entered a civil commitment ceremony on October 9, 2010 in front of the Scottsdale Civic Center. Over 300 friends and family gathered to watch.
(4) Mason Hite and Christopher Devine – Mason and Chris met in Phoenix and have been in a committed relationship since 2002. They live together in Maricopa County, Arizona. The couple decided to adopt a seven-year-old boy. However, like Suzanne and Holly, Mason and Christopher had difficulty in both being able to adopt. Thus the boy was adopted by Mason. However, he calls both Mason and Chris, “Daddy.”
The Claims.
This is not the first time Arizona’s ban on gay marriage has been challenged in federal court. However, the Plaintiffs in this case cite the recent United States Supreme Court Decision of United States v. Windsor. That case challenged Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court held that federal law cannot treat a same-sex couple differently for any kind of federal benefit that would arise for married couples. However, the opinion indicated that the federal benefits only apply if the state they are in would otherwise recognize same-sex marriage.
The Windsor decision stopped short of addressing whether or not the Supreme Court felt that homosexual marriage was a fundamental right. It did, however, open the door to that challenge. Since the decision, a flurry of claims have surfaced challenging state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.
This case expressly raises three different claims. First, it complains that the Arizona prohibition of gay marriage is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit Clause generally requires that states recognize certain legal acts of other states. Thus, theorize the Plaintiffs, Arizona should recognize the marriages of same-sex couples from states that allow homosexual marriage.
Next the complaint asserts that Arizona’s ban represents a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The theory is that Arizona’s prohibition of gay marriage singles out homosexual partners for disfavored treatment and imposes inequality on them.
Finally, the complaint asserts that the prohibition of gay marriage represents a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The theory is that the Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights. Since marriage is a fundamental right, prohibiting same-sex partners from marrying is a violation of their fundamental rights.
Each of the three claims in the complaint expressly mentions the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision.
Regardless of how the Arizona Court rules, it is highly likely the side that does not prevail will appeal the decision. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely have to make a decision on whether or not homosexual marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.