UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Kristoffer J. Bonilla and John Thomas Wray, PLAINTIFFS

v.

Brenda Hurst, Director of the Orleans Parish Office of Marriage Licensing;

Darlene W. Smith, State Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics; Dr. Rony
Francola, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Health; Alan Levine,
Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals; and James D. Caldwell,
Attorney General, DEFENDANTS

Civil Action No. _____________

Number ____________

Section “____”, Mag. “_______”

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

NOW COME PLAINTIFFS, Kristoffer J. Bonilla and John Thomas Wray,

both persons of the full age of majority, United States citizens, domiciled and

residing in the State of Louisiana, who, with respect, represent:

1.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, this Court has jurisdiction over the action

because it arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and international treaties, including, but not

limited to, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

2.

On April 2, 2009, Petitioners applied for a marriage license at the

Orleans Parish Marriage License Office and were denied. The clerk refused

to issue a marriage license because both applicants were male and that

Louisiana law (Article XII §15 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil

Code Articles 89 and 3520) denies an individual the right to marry if he or

she chooses a partner of the same sex.

3.

Respondents’ refusal to grant the Petitioners a marriage license violates

the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (as applied to

Louisiana by the Fourteenth Amendment) by infringing on a fundamental

liberty interest, the right to marry, without any compelling government

interest.

4.

Moreover, the supporting Louisiana provisions run afoul of the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by curtailing the right to marry

based upon a religious interpretation of the nature and purpose of marriage

itself. By failing to articulate a legitimate, compelling and secular interest for

the restriction on marriage, the State has necessarily established a wholly

religious civil institution. Accordingly, Respondents’ appeal to the “sanctity”

or religious tradition of marriage does not justify the State’s restriction; it

unmasks an independent constitutional objection.

5.

Additionally, the Louisiana laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondents issue marriage licenses in a

discriminatory fashion. First, the law discriminates on the basis of sex by

restricting men from marrying men and women from marrying women; the

right to choose a partner, essential to a meaningful marriage, is encumbered

because of the applicant’s sex. Second, it discriminates on the basis of

sexual orientation by affecting the class of persons not exclusively attracted

to members of the opposite sex. Accordingly, the only individuals who enjoy

the right to marry are those exclusively attracted to members of the

opposite sex. Neither rational basis nor substantial or compelling interest

supports that limitation. Therefore, regardless of how the class affected is

articulated, Louisiana law fails requisite Constitutional scrutiny.

6.

Finally, international law, as expressed in the Preamble and Article I §3

to the U.N. Charter, Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 16 and 22 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 17, 23, 25 and 26 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, proscribes the actions

and laws prompting the instant action. As treaties ratified by the United
States Senate, these provisions supersede Louisiana’s marriage restriction.

7.

Respondent Brenda Hurst is the Director of the Orleans Parish Office of

Marriage Licensing and, as such, is the public official charged with reviewing

applications for marriage licenses, insuring compliance with State regulation

and issuing licenses to prospective couples. She is sued herein solely in her

official capacity.

8.

Respondent Darlene W. Smith is the Registrar of Vital Records and

Statistics of the State of Louisiana. As Registrar Ms. Smith instructs and

supervises local registrars by prescribing and furnishing vital statistic forms,

including marriage license forms for use by licensing officials. In addition,

she arranges and preserves all registered vital statistics licenses, including

marriages, in a comprehensive State index. She is sued herein solely in her

official capacity.

9.

Respondent Rony Francola, M.D. is the Assistant Secretary of the Office

of Public Health for the State of Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Dr.

Francola reports to Respondent Levine and is the official responsible for

prescribing and furnishing the forms for the application for the license to

marry, the certificate of registry of marriage and the marriage certificate. He

is sued herein only in his official capacity.

 10.

Respondent Alan Levine is the Louisiana Secretary for the Department

of Health and Hospitals, responsible for enforcing Louisiana laws regulating

the licensing of marriage through oversight and control of both the Office of

Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics. He is sued

herein solely in his official capacity.

11.

Respondent James D. Caldwell is the Attorney General for the State of

Louisiana. As the enforcement officer for the laws of the State, he bears

ultimate responsibility and burden to justify Louisiana’s legal restrictions on

the right to marry. He is sued herein solely in his official capacity.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners request the following relief:

1.

That this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, order a speedy hearing and issue a declaratory

judgment holding Art. XII, §15 of the Louisiana Constitution, Articles 89 and

Article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code invalid because they are either

unconstitutional, illegal under international law, or both.

2.
 That this Court, pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, issue injunctive relief requiring Respondents to issue the

Petitioners a marriage license and restraining Respondents from

implementing, enforcing or applying the relevant Louisiana provisions.

3.

That this Court, pursuant to Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, grant relief previously available through the writ of mandamus to

insure that parish clerks and other local officials throughout the State, in

performing their duty to issue marriage licenses in their jurisdictions, do so

without regard for either the sex or sexual orientation of either applicant.

4.

That Petitioners be awarded costs; and

5.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

equitable.

Date _________________________
_
____________________________
Kristoffer J. Bonilla, pro se

____________________________

John Thomas Wray, pro se