Peter K. Michael (Wyo. Bar No.

5-2309)
Attorney General of Wyoming
Martin L. Hardsocg (Wyo. Bar No. 6-2919)
Deputy Attorney General
Ryan T. Schelhaas (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3321)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Michael M. Robinson (Wyo. Bar No. 6-2658)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Jared S. Crecelius (Wyo. Bar No. 6-4118)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Wyoming Attorney Generals Office
123 State Capitol Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7876
(307) 777-3687 fax

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; )
Ivan Williams and Charles Killion; )
Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery; )
Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and )
Wyoming Equality, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 14-CV-200-SWS
)
Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity as )
the Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in )
his official capacity as Director of the )
Wyoming Department of Administration and )
Information; Dave Urquidez, in his official )
capacity as Administrator of the State of )
Wyoming Human Resources Division; and )
Debra K. Lathrop, in her official capacity )
as Laramie County Clerk, )
)
Defendants. )


DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

The Defendants, Matthew H. Mead, Governor of the State of Wyoming, Dean Fausset,
and Dave Urquidez, in their official capacities (State Defendants), by and through the Office of
the Attorney General, hereby oppose Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction for the
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 1 of 12
Page 2 of 12

following reasons:
INTRODUCTION
On March 5, 2014, Plaintiffs challenged Wyomings statutes defining marriage on state
constitutional grounds in Courage, et al., v. State of Wyo., et al., Doc. No. 182-262 (1st Judicial
District, Laramie County). Plaintiffs alleged only that Wyomings statutes, Wyo. Stat. Ann.
20-1-101 & 20-1-111, violated Wyomings constitutional due process guarantees, equal
protection guarantees, and that Wyomings application of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-1-111 was
incorrect. See Courage Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiffs alleged no violation of
the United States Constitution.
Only recently did Plaintiffs file the above captioned action, on October 7, 2014,
following the United States Supreme Courts denial of writs of certiorari to review two Tenth
Circuit decisions. See Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760
F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014). In those cases, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit ruled that Utahs and Oklahomas laws defining marriage as only between persons of the
opposite sex were unconstitutional. The Tenth Circuit had stayed its rulings in Kitchen and
Bishop pending resolution of appeals to the United States Supreme Court.
Following the Tenth Circuits mandates in Kitchen and Bishop, Plaintiffs sued
Defendants in this Court and now seek a preliminary injunction requesting: (1) that Defendants
be barred from enforcing any Wyoming statute, law, policy, or practice that excludes the
Unmarried Plaintiffs and other same sex couples from marriage, or that refuses recognition of the
marriages of the Married Plaintiffs or other married same-sex couples who live in Wyoming, and
(2) that Defendants be required to issue or permit issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, including the Unmarried Plaintiffs, pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 2 of 12
Page 3 of 12

applicable to opposite-sex couples, and without regard to the gender or sexual-orientation of the
applicants. (Pltf. Mot. Prelim. Inj, p. 9). Plaintiffs also request a temporary restraining order. Id.
ARGUMENT
I. Standard of Review
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the right to such relief must be
clear and unequivocal. Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir.
2003). Plaintiffs must prove: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood
that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
equities weighs in their favor; and (4) that issuing the injunction is in the public interest. Winter
v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1111
(10th Cir. 2002).
It is not enough for a court considering a request for injunctive relief to ask whether
there is a good reason why an injunction should not issue; rather, a court must determine that an
injunction should issue[.] Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 158 (2010)
(emphasis in original). In each case, a court must balance the competing claims of injury and
must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987).
In the present matter, however, Plaintiffs must carry an even greater burden to justify
their requested relief. The Tenth Circuit has warned that movants must satisfy a heightened
burden when seeking injunctive relief, and their petitions must be more closely scrutinized to
assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even
in the normal course, when the movants seek: (1) preliminary injunctions that alter the status
quo; (2) mandatory preliminary injunctions; and (3) preliminary injunctions that afford the
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 3 of 12
Page 4 of 12

movant all the relief that he could recover at the conclusion of a full trial on the merits. Awad v.
Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1125 (10th. Cir. 2012). These forms of injunctive relief are disfavored
[b]ecause each of these types of preliminary injunction is at least partially at odds with the
historic purpose of the preliminary injunctionthe preservation of the status quo pending a trial
on the merits ... SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA. Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 109899 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiffs, therefore, must carry under a heightened burden to make a strong showing both with
regard to the likelihood of success on the merits and with regard to the balance of harms. Awad
at 1126.
Finally, the Supreme Court has emphasized that before granting a stay, a district court
must consider not only the likelihood of success on the merits and the relative harms to the
parties, but also the extent to which a requesting party has delayed in bringing a claim. Nelson v.
Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 649-50 (2004) (as applied when the court discussed a request to
enjoin/stay an execution). A strong equitable presumption applies against the grant of a stay
where a claim could have been brought at a time that allowed consideration of the merits without
requiring the stay. Id.
II. The Plaintiffs cannot sustain their burden and are, accordingly, not entitled
to a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the four injunctive relief factors favor an injunction,
especially as they are subject to the heightened burden to make a strong showing both with
regard to the likelihood of success on the merits and with regard to the balance of harms. Indeed,
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief that triggers the Tenth Circuits heightened review, and the type
of injunctive relief that is especially disfavored in the Tenth Circuit, for all three reasons:
(1) Plaintiffs would have this Court suddenly alter the status quo, Wyomings longstanding
statutory definition of marriage, and would require county clerks to issue marriage licenses to
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 4 of 12
Page 5 of 12

same-sex couples; (2) Plaintiffs would have this Court mandate that county clerks issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples, as well as require all other governmental officials to change the
eligibility of same-sex married couples under state and local laws, and (3) Plaintiffs would have
this Court immediately grant all relief that Plaintiffs ultimately hope to obtain. Plaintiffs seek
these forms of disfavored injunctive relief notwithstanding that the State of Wyoming has not yet
answered the Complaint or had a reasonable opportunity to examine Plaintiffs allegations that
Wyomings laws violate the United States Constitution.
Moreover, Plaintiffs chose to forego these constitutional challenges until only recently,
after the United States Supreme Court rejected appeals from the Tenth Circuits rulings in
Kitchen and Bishop. Plaintiffs could have sued the Defendants in federal court at the time they
sued Wyoming in state district courtor brought these federal claims in state courtbut the
Plaintiffs narrowly limited their challenge to the protections afforded under the Wyoming
Constitution. Plaintiffs now ask this Court to rush to grant Plaintiffs virtually all of the relief they
intentionally chose not to pursue some seven months ago, and they would have this Court strike
down state laws before the State even answers the complaint they filed one week ago. Plaintiffs
do not come to this Court with clean hands and should not benefit from such tactics.
A. Likelihood of success on the merits.

The Plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits in their claims. First, as
to the State Defendants, the Plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs Oleson and Johnston, who allege
they are currently married, lack standing because neither Oleson nor Johnston are currently
employed by the State of Wyoming, and their complaint fails to allege any actual harm. The
Complaint speculates that Johnstons retirement pension administrator will not acknowledge
Oleson as a spousal beneficiary even though he is currently listed as such. (Complaint at 26)
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 5 of 12
Page 6 of 12

(see also attached Affidavit). The remaining named Plaintiffs have no actionable claims against a
State Defendant; whether or not those Plaintiffs marry is not a decision for the State Defendants,
but, rather, a decision for the county clerk. Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-1-103 & 105.
In light of the Tenth Circuits decisions in Kitchen and Bishop, Defendants acknowledge
that this Court is bound by Tenth Circuit precedent unless the precedent has been overruled by
the Tenth Circuit sitting en banc or superseded by contrary Supreme Court decision. Haynes v.
Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 900 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1996), U.S. v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707. Accordingly,
Defendants anticipate that Plaintiffs, assuming they have standing, may ultimately succeed on
the merits before this Court in the present case. However, consistent with the Honorable Justice
Paul J. Kellys dissent in Kitchen and Bishop, Defendants contend that the majority in those
cases erred in finding that persons of the same gender have a fundamental right to marry.
Kitchen v. Herbert, at 1208-18; Bishop v. Smith, at 1080. In as much as the majority incorrectly
recognized a fundamental right, contrary to the Supreme Courts decision in Baker v. Nelson, the
majority in Kitchen and Bishop also erred in applying strict scrutiny to the alleged discrimination
in those respective cases, contrary to the Supreme Courts guidance in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S.
810 (1972). Because Baker remains good law and binds the Tenth Circuit, Defendants believe
they will prevail on the merits before the full court of appeals, or the United States Supreme
Court, for the reasons set forth in Justice Kellys dissenting opinion.
B. Denial of the preliminary injunction will not irreparably harm the
Plaintiffs because same gender marriage is not a fundamental right.

As stated above, State Defendants are aware that this Court is bound by the precedent and
reasoning set by the panel in Kitchen and Bishop and acknowledge that those panel decisions
hold that same-gender marriage is a fundamental right protected by the United States
Constitution. Kitchen at 1208-18; Bishop at 1080. Assuming Plaintiffs have standing, the State
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 6 of 12
Page 7 of 12

Defendants understand that this court may likely conclude that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable
harm if this preliminary injunction is not granted. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).
That being said, the State Defendants would again argue that the Tenth Circuit panel in Kitchen
and Bishop erred in holding that same gender marriage is a fundamental constitutional right for
the same reasons set forth above, and wish to preserve their ability to challenge that decision
before the full Tenth Circuit.
C. The balance of harms weighs against issuance of a preliminary
injunction.

A court must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on
each party of the granting or withholding the requested relief. Amoco Prod. Co., 480 U.S. at
542. As a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the right to relief must be clear
and unequivocal. SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA. Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1099 (10th Cir.1991).
Because Plaintiffs sat on their constitutional claims for many months and decided last week to
sue the Defendants for violation of the United States Constitution, the State of Wyoming has had
less than one week to evaluate, respond to, and defend against Plaintiffs allegations that
Wyomings statutory laws violate the United States Constitution. Wyomings constitutional
equality provisions are different than those contained in the United States Constitution.
Compare U.S. Const. art. 1 1 and Wyo. Const. art. 1 2, 3. The State of Wyoming should be
permitted a reasonable opportunity to evaluate and respond to Plaintiffs newly raised allegations
that Wyomings statutes violate the United States Constitution, especially in light of the
Plaintiffs intentional delay in bringing their action seven months after suing in state district
court. Nelson, 541 U.S. at 649-50.
Moreover, this Court should consider the breadth and scope of Plaintiffs requested
injunctive reliefan abrupt redefinition of marriage in Wyoming that would not only negate
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 7 of 12
Page 8 of 12

long-established Wyoming statutory law, but would simultaneously compel countless agencies
and political subdivisions to reform their regulations, policies, and practices to the extent those
practices and regulations rely upon Wyomings statutory definition of marriage. Plaintiffs seek a
mandatory injunction that would order changes in state and local governmental law, some of
which the State and its officials likely have not yet identified. When the opposing party is the
representative of the political branches of a government the court must consider that all judicial
interference with a public program has the cost of diminishing the scope of democratic
governance. Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. WorldCom Technologies, Inc., 157 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir.
1998).
A preliminary injunction, should one issue, also betrays the historic assurance that it is
the states that define domestic relations, not the federal government. U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct.
2675, 2689-91 (2013). The Windsor Court did nothing to change that authority, and narrowly
addressed federal law defining marital status. Id. at 2691-93, 2695-96. While the Tenth Circuit
and other courts have recently struck down state laws defining marriage as between only a man
and woman, no such court has ruled that Wyomings statutes are unconstitutional, either under
the Wyoming or the United States Constitution. Until that occurs on the merits, as opposed to a
preliminary injunction proceeding, the Wyoming Legislatures definition of marriage should
remain the law.
Further, Plaintiffs claim prejudice and irreparable harm which, assuming it indeed exists,
must be put into proper perspective. Plaintiffs claim to be irreparably harmed because a panel of
the Tenth Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry
under the United States Constitution, and the United States Supreme Court denied writs of
ceriorari presented by Utah and Oklahma. Given the breadth and significance of the principles
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 8 of 12
Page 9 of 12

at stake in this lawsuit, and the manner in which a preliminary injunction would profoundly
disrupt Wyomings laws and regulations in existence for many decades, the balance of interests
favors denial of the requested relief so that the State may in due course resolve whether its laws
violate the Plaintiffs equal protection rights under the United States Constitution. Wyoming is
entitled to the same opportunity to defend its laws as was afforded Oklahoma and Utah.
In sum, Plaintiffs motion cannot withstand this Courts heightened review. The severe
impact upon the State, an abrupt summary ruling that Wyomings historic marriage laws are
unconstitutional, along with the consequentially profound change to the States and the local
authorities administration of government, favor maintenance of the status quo, at least until
Wyoming has an opportunity to address these recently pled allegations. Plaintiffs claimed
prejudice, in light of their own delay in pursuing their rights, does not outweigh the States
sovereign interest in continuously administering and defending its laws in the interim.
D. The public interest does not favor a preliminary injunction.

Even if the Court determines that irreparable injury exists, it may deny the requested
injunction if it is contrary to the public interest. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. The Plaintiffs must
demonstrate that the injunction, if issued, is not adverse to the public interest. Heideman v. S.
Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1191 (10th Cir. 2003).
It is in the public interest that every state, including Wyoming in the present case,
continue with the application of laws pending constitutional challenge of those laws. Plaintiffs
challenge of Wyomings laws stems from challenges to the laws of Utah and Oklahoma. The
state of Wyoming was not a party to those proceedings. The first challenge under the United
States Constitution to Wyomings definition of marriage statute occurred less than a week ago.
General fairness considerations favor allowing the State an opportunity to respond to the
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 9 of 12
Page 10 of 12

challenges, as was given Utah and Oklahoma. Moreover, maintaining the status quo would avoid
the confusion and difficulties should the Tenth Circuit choose to entertain Wyomings arguments
that its decisions in Kitchen and Bishop were incorrect.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction should be denied because Plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate neither standing to bring suit against the State Defendants nor sustain their
burden of showing that the preliminary injunction factors weigh in their favor under this Courts
heightened review. Further, Plaintiffs claimed harm results as much from their own delay in
bringing their claims under the United States Constitution. Had they presented this lawsuit back
in March when they sued under Wyomings Constitution, the claims would likely be ripe for
resolution today without the need for an injunction. In any event, the States opportunity to
defend its laws should not be diminished in favor of Plaintiffs rush to judgment on claims of
importance to Wyoming. This Court should permit the State to proceed just as other states were
permitted under like circumstancesto respond to, and defend, Wyomings laws in due course.


















Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 10 of 12
Page 11 of 12

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL


/s/ Jared S. Crecelius
Peter K. Michael, (Wyo. Bar. No. 5-2309)
Attorney General of Wyoming
Martin L. Hardsocg (Wyo. Bar No. 6-2919)
Deputy Attorney General
Ryan T. Schelhaas (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3321)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Michael M. Robinson (Wyo. Bar. No. 6-2658)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Jared S. Crecelius (Wyo. Bar No. 6-4118)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for the State Defendants
123 State Capitol Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7876
(307) 777-3687 fax
pete.michael@wyo.gov
marty.hardsocg@wyo.gov
ryan.schelhaas@wyo.gov
mike.robinson@wyo.gov
jared.crecelius@wyo.gov

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 11 of 12
Page 12 of 12

I certify that on this 13
th
day of October, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the CM/ECF system which sent notice to the following:

Tracy L. Zubrod James Lyman
zubrod@aol.com Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.
james.lyman@aporter.com

Qusair Mohamedbhai Shannon P. Minter
qm@rmlawyers.com Christopher F. Stoll
sminter@nclrights.org

Mark T. Voss Bernard P. Haggerty
mvoss@laramiecounty.com bernardh@laramiecounty.com


/s/ Jared S. Crecelius
Jared S. Crecelius

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26 Filed 10/13/14 Page 12 of 12
IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF WYOMING, COUNTY OF LARAMIE
DOCKET I 'i5 2. NUMBER 2 4 <._
'
Cora Emma-Terese Sacah Courage and Wyoma
Kay Proffit; Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; Anne
Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; Ivan Williams
and Charles Killion; and Wyoming Equality,
Plaintiffs,
v.
State of Wyoming; Matthew H. Mead, in his
official capacity as the Governor of Wyoming;
Dean Fausset, in his official capacity as Director of
the Wyoming Department of Administration and
Information; Dave Urquidez, in his official capacity
as Administrator of the State of Wyoming Human
Resources Division; and Debbye Balcaen Lathrop,
in her official capacity as Laramie County Clerk,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------
I
FILED
MAR - 5 2014 r ~
SANDY LANDERS
CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. Wyoming's state motto is "Equal Rights." Wyoming's reputation as the Equality
State is well-deserved. As often noted by the Wyoming courts, "the Wyoming Constitution
offers more robust protection against legal discrimination than the federal constitution." See
Allhusen v. State By and Through Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Bd., 898 P.2d
878, 884 (Wyo. 1995).
2. Wyoming has a long history of respecting marriages that were validly entered into
in other jurisdictions and affording those marriages all of the rights and privileges of a Wyoming
marriage. But in 1977, Wyoming singled out the marriages of same-sex couples by excluding
them from recognition.
3. Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of Wyoming's statute
that excludes same-sex couples from marriage, and Wyoming's practice- in contravention of its
own law--of refusing to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples lawfully entered into in
other jurisdictions. See Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101; 20-1-111.
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT A
4. Wyoming, like other states, encourages and regulates marriage through hundreds
of laws that provide benefits to and impose obligations upon married couples. In exchange,
Wyoming receives the well-established benefits that marriage brings: stable, supportive families
that create loving homes for children and contribute to both the social and economic well-being
of Wyoming.
5. Wyoming's refusal to marry same-sex couples and recognize the valid out-of-
state marriages of same-sex couples violates the guarantees of the Wyoming Constitution. This
Court should so declare and issue an injunction requiring defendants to issue marriage licenses to
the unmarried plaintiffs without regard to their status as same-sex couples, and to recognize the
existing marriages of the married plaintiffs.
6. Plaintiffs are same-sex couples who live in Wyoming, and Wyoming Equality, a
non-profit organization dedicated to securing full equality for Wyoming's lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender ("LGBT") community.
7. The Plaintiff couples are active and contributing members of society, with diverse
backgrounds and educations. They are distinguished war veterans, counselors, professors, and
sheep ranchers, among other professions. Some are parents; others do not have children. The
situations faced by these couples are similar to those faced by many other same-sex couples in
Wyoming who are denied the basic rights, privileges, and protections of marriage for themselves
and their children.
8. Plaintiffs Cora Courage and Wyoma "Nonie" Proffit, and Carl Oleson and Rob
Johnston (collectively the "Married Plaintiffs"), are legally married same-sex couples, having
wed in Iowa and Canada respectively. However, in their home state of Wyoming, they are
treated as legal strangers to their spouses.
9. Although Wyoming law states that "[a]ll marriage contracts which are valid by
the laws ofthe country in which contracted are valid in this state," Wyo. Stat. 20-1-111, and
does not specifically exempt same-sex marriages from that recognition, it has been the practice
of Wyoming officials to refuse to recognize the lawful marriages of same-sex couples who
married in other jurisdictions and to deny those married couples any of the rights and protections
of marriage. By refusing to recognize the lawful marriages of the Married Plaintiffs and denying
them all of the rights and protections given to other legally married couples, Wyoming has
effectively nullified their legal status and their rights and responsibilities as married people.
2
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 2 of 21
10. Plaintiffs Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson, and Ivan Williams and
Charles "Chuck" Killion (collectively the "Unmarried Plaintiffs"), are unmarried same-sex
couples in committed relationships who desire to marry in Wyoming. The Unmarried Plaintiffs
meet all the requirements Wyoming imposes for the issuance of marriage licenses except that
they are same-sex couples.
11. The Unmarried Plaintiffs wish to publicly declare their love and commitment
before their family, friends, and community; to join their lives together and enter into a legally
binding commitment to one another; and to share in the protections and security that marriage
provides. The Unmarried Plaintiffs have strong ties to Wyoming and getting married in their
home state of Wyoming is of immense personal importance to them.
12. Like many other couples with a life-long commitment, the Unmarried Plaintiffs
are spouses in every sense except for their inability to legally marry under Wyoming law, which
provides that "[m]arriage is a civil contract between a male and a female person to which the
consent of the parties capable of contracting is essential." Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101. This provision
forbids the Unmarried Plaintiffs from marrying in Wyoming.
13. Wyoming' s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and refusal to respect
the marriages of legally married same-sex couples adversely impact the Plaintiff couples, and
other Wyoming same-sex who are members of Wyoming Equality, in real and significant ways.
When Wyoming withholds a marriage license from a same-sex couple, or refuses to recognize a
same-sex couple' s valid marriage from another jurisdiction, it circumscribes the affected
individuals' basic life choices, classifies the affected individuals and couples in a manner that
denies them the public recognition and myriad benefits of marriage, prevents the couple from
making a legally binding commitment to one another and from being treated by the government
and by others as a family rather than as umelated individuals, and harms society by burdening
and disrupting committed families and preventing couples from being able to full y protect and
assume responsibility for one another and their children. The Plaintiff couples and their children
are stigmatized and relegated to second-class status.
14. Wyoming' s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and refusal to respect
existing marriages undermines the Plaintiff couples' ability to achieve their life goals and
dreams, disadvantages them financially, and denies them "dignity and status of immense
import." United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2692 (2013). Wyoming' s disparate
3
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 3 of 21
treatment of same-sex couples "tells those couples and all the world that their [relationships] are
unworthy" of recognition. !d. at 2694. By singling out same-sex couples and their families and
excluding them from any type of marital protection, Wyoming "humiliates ... children now
being raised by same-sex couples" and "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." !d.
15. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have extended the freedom to marry
to same-sex couples, and the institution of marriage continues to thrive. Marriage contributes to
the happiness, security, and peace of mind of countless couples and their families, and to the
stability and well-being of society.
16. History has taught that the legitimacy and vitality of marriage do not depend on
upholding discriminatory marriage laws. Accordingly, our courts and society have discarded,
one by one, marriage laws that violated the mandate of equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
17. In the not so distant past, the majority of states, including Wyoming, had laws
prohibiting marriage between people of different races. 1 The Supreme Court held such
exclusions from marriage to be unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967),
declaring: "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. This principle is equally
applicable to same-sex couples. Eliminating the remaining unconstitutional barriers to marriage
further enhances the institution and society, while protecting the fundamental rights of
individuals.
18. Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, and its refusal to
respect the marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into in other jurisdictions, violate the
Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees in Article 1 of the Wyoming Constitution. Section
2 provides that "[i]n their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members
of the human race are equal." Section 3 provides that "[s]ince equality in the enjoyment of
natural and civil rights is only made sure through political equality, the laws of this state
affecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race,
color, sex, or any circumstance or condition whatsoever other than individual incompetency, or
l Wyoming eliminated all legal barriers to interracial marriage in 1965. See Kim Ibach and
William H. Moore, "The Emerging Civil Rights Movement: The 1957 Wyoming Public
Accommodations Statute as a Case Study," 73 Annals of Wyoming 8 (Winter 2001).
4
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 4 of 21
unworthiness duly ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction." Section 6 provides that
"[n]o person shall be deprived oflife, liberty or property without due process of law."
19. Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and its refusal to
respect the marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into in other jurisdictions deprive the
Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to marry and infringe upon their constitutionally protected
interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association.
Wyoming' s refusal to respect their marriages further deprives the Married Plaintiffs of their
constitutionally protected liberty interest in their marital status and their right to have their
marriage accorded the same recognition in Wyoming as it would be accorded in the state in
which it was entered. Wyoming's refusal to recognize valid same-sex marriages entered into in
other jurisdictions also discriminates against the class of legally married persons.
20. Wyoming's treatment of the Plaintiff couples is subject to heightened scrutiny
because it burdens fundamental constitutional rights and because it discriminates on the basis of
sex and sexual orientation. Wyoming's treatment of the Plaintiff couples and other same-sex
couples cannot survive any level of constitutional scrutiny, however, because it does not
rationally further any legitimate government interest, but serves only to injure and humiliate
same-sex couples and their families.
21. Plaintiffs bring this suit pursuant to Wyoming Statutes 1-37-103 for declaratory
relief, and Wyoming Statutes 1-28-101 through 104 for injunctive relief. Specifically,
Plaintiffs seek: (a) a declaration that Wyoming' s prohibition of marriage for same-sex couples
violates the Wyoming Constitution; (b) a declaration that Wyoming's refusal to recognize the
marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into in other jurisdictions violates Wyoming law
and the Wyoming Constitution; and (c) a permanent injunction (i) preventing Defendants from
denying the Unmarried Plaintiffs the right to marry, and (ii) directing Defendants to recognize
the marriages of the Married Plaintiffs that were validly entered into in other jurisdictions.
22. Plaintiffs state the below causes of action against Defendants in their official
capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
23. The declaratory and injunctive relief requested in this action is sought against
each Defendant; against each Defendant's officers, employees, and agents; and against all
persons acting in active concert or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant's
supervision, direction, or control.
5
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 5 of 21
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this equitable action pursuant to
Wyo. Const. Art. 5 10, Wyo. Stat. 1-28-101 et seq., and the Uniform Declaratory
Judgments Act, Wyo. Stat. 1-37-101 et seq.
25. Venue is proper in this district court pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 1-5-104.
PARTIES
A. The Plaintiffs
26. Plaintiffs Cora Courage and Wyoma "Nonie" Proffit have been in a committed
relationship for nine years and reside in Evanston, Wyoming. They were legally married in Iowa
in December 2009. Cora is a decorated veteran of the armed services and a Major in the Army
Reserves. Nonie is a part-time librarian, and a sheep herder on her family's ranch. Cora is the
Clinical Director of the Wyoming State Hospital. As an employee of the State of Wyoming,
Cora is entitled to enroll her spouse in her health and dental insurance coverage. Wyo. Stat. 9-
3-209. Cora's application to add Nonie as her dependent spouse was denied by the Human
Resources Division of the Department of Administration and Information, under authority of
Defendants Urquidez and Fausset respectively, on September 18,2013, on grounds that Nonie
"does not qualify as a dependent as defined by the State of Wyoming." Had Cora's spouse been
a man, there is no question that Cora's spouse would have "qualified as a dependent as defined
by the State of Wyoming."
27. Plaintiffs Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston have been in a committed relationship
for 16 years, and reside in Casper, Wyoming. They were legally married in Ontario, Canada, on
July 16,2010. Carl manages a retail shop, and is very active in the United Church of Christ.
Rob, who has a master 's degree in counseling education, is the program director at Proj ect
ReGain, a life skills program for people recovering from addiction. Rob recently retired from
the Wyoming Department of Health, where he ran the HIV Prevention Program. Rob has a
pension from the State of Wyoming, which lists Carl as his spouse and beneficiary. But, even
though Rob and Carl are legally married, neither can have confidence that the state will
recognize this designation in the event of Rob's death and, based on Wyoming' s current practice
of denying recognition to same-sex spouses, have a strong basis for concern that the state will
not recognize Carl as a surviving spouse. Rob and Carl should not be deprived of the security
that other married couples enjoy and should not have to wait until Rob's death to determine
6
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 6 of 21
whether the State of Wyoming will honor this contract because any delay in Carl's receipt of
those benefits will have detrimental consequences. See Wyo. Stat. 1-37-101 et seq.
28. Plaintiffs Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson have been in a committed
relationship for four years, and reside in Laramie, Wyoming. They meet all of Wyoming's
qualifications for issuance of a marriage license, except that they are both women. Anne was
born and raised in Wyoming, and both A1me and Bonnie have a special connection to the state
and wish to get married here. Anne is a professor at the University of Wyoming. If Anne and
Bonnie were able to marry, Anne could add Bonnie to her state-offered health insurance plan.
Wyo. Stat. 9-3-209. Because they are unable to marry, however, the couple must purchase
insurance for Bonnie on the private market, at added cost. Like many other same-sex couples in
Wyoming, because they are unable to marry, Anne and Bonnie also must hire an attorney to draft
will and estate documents that would be unnecessary if their marriage was allowed.
29. Plaintiffs Ivan Williams and Charles "Chuck" Killion have been in a committed
relationship for nearly two years, and reside in Cheyenne, Wyoming. They meet all of
Wyoming' s qualifications for issuance of a marriage license, except that they are both men.
Chuck was born and raised in Wyoming, and both Ivan and Chuck have a special connection to
the state and wish to get married here. I van is an employee of the State of Wyoming. Iflvan
and Chuck were able to marry, Ivan could add Chuck to his state-offered health insurance plan
Wyo. Stat. 9-3-209, and designate Chuck as the beneficiary of his pension. Because they are
unable to marry, however, Chuck bought into his employer's health insurance plan, which is
more expensive than Ivan's monthly premiums and provides fewer benefits. Additionally, Ivan
and Chuck hired a lawyer to prepare advanced healthcare directives, durable powers of attorney,
and other trust and estate documents that would be unnecessary if their marriage was allowed.
30. Plaintiff Wyoming Equality is the state's largest civil rights organization
dedicated to securing full equality for Wyoming's LGBT community. The organization has
many members throughout the state. Since its inception, the organization has represented the
interests of Wyoming's LGBT citizens through public education, coalition-building, advocacy,
and grassroots organizing. Wyoming Equality also coordinates public education campaigns and
events for policymakers, LGBT people, and the public at large on issues affecting the LGBT
community. Wyoming Equality' s members include many same-sex couples throughout
Wyoming, including residents of Laramie County who wish to marry and intend to apply for
7
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 7 of 21
marriage licenses if the Wyoming law and practice prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying
are declared unconstitutional as a result of this action. Wyoming Equality's members also
include same-sex couples who lawfully married in other jurisdictions and who wish to have those
marriages recognized by their state. Wyoming Equality brings this action in an associational
capacity on behalf of its members who desire to marry in Wyoming but are prevented from doing
so by enforcement of Wyoming's law and practice excluding same-sex couples from marriage,
or who have married in another state and whose marriages are not recognized by the State of
Wyoming.
B. The Defendants
31 . Defendant Matthew "Matt" Mead is Governor of the State of Wyoming. Article
4, section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution states: "[The Governor] shall expedite all such
measures as may be resolved upon by the legislature and shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed." Defendant Mead is responsible for upholding and ensuring compliance
with the state constitution and statutes prescribed by the legislature, including Wyoming' s Jaw
barring same-sex couples from marriage. Governor Mead also bears the authority and
responsibility for the formulation and implementation of policies of the executive branch.
Governor Mead' s official residence is in Cheyenne, within Laramie County. Governor Mead
was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his
official capacity.
32. Defendant Dean Fausset is the Director of the Wyoming Department of
Administration and Information, which is the agency responsible for oversight of the Human
Resources Division, which is in turn responsible for determining eligibility for benefits for state
employees. Mr. Fausset is responsible for ensuring that state employees are able to add their
spouses as dependents on their health and dental insurance policies. Mr. Fausset's official
residence is in Cheyenne, within Laramie County. Defendant Fausset was acting under color of
state law at all times relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his official capacity.
33. Defendant Dave Urquidez is the Administrator of the State of Wyoming Human
Resources Division, which is responsible for determining eligibility for benefits for state
employees. Mr. Urquidez is responsible for ensuring that state employees are able to add their
spouses as dependents on their health and dental insurance policies. Mr. Urquidez's official
8
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 8 of 21
residence is in Cheyenne, within Laramie County. Defendant Urquidez was acting under color
of state Jaw at all times relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his official capacity.
34. Defendant Debbye Balcaen Lathrop is the Clerk of Laramie County, Wyoming.
Under Wyoming law, as the Laramie County Clerk, Defendant Lathrop may issue a license to
marry, and must record returned marriage licenses. Wyo. Stat. 20-1-103(b); 20- l -107(b).
Defendant Latluop was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
She is sued in her official capacity.
35. Defendants, through their respective duties and obligations, are responsible for
enforcing Wyoming's laws barring same-sex couples from marriage and Wyoming's policy of
refusing to recognize the valid marriages of same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions.
Each Defendant, and those subject to their supervision and control, have caused the harms
alleged, and will continue to injure Plaintiffs if not enjoined. Accordingly, the relief requested is
sought against all Defendants, as well as all persons under their supervision and control,
including their officers, employees and agents.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Wyoming's Laws Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage and Refusing to Recognize the
Valid Out-of-State Marriages of Same-Sex Couples
36. Wyoming law defines marriage as "a civil contract between a male and a female
person." Wyo. Stat. 20- 1-101. This definition on its face excludes same-sex couples.
37. Generally, Wyoming recognizes marriages from other states or countries that are
valid under the other jurisdiction's laws. Wyoming Statute 20-1-111 provides that "[a]ll
marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in
this state," and does not specifically exempt same-sex marriages from that recognition. For
example, although Wyoming does not recognize common-law marriages, it will recognize a
common-law marriage established under laws of another jurisdiction, and give such marriage the
same binding effect it would have in the state in which it was consummated. See Compton v.
Davis Oil Co., 607 F. Supp. 1221, 1229 (D. Wyo. 1985); see also Bowers v Wyoming State
Treasurer, ex. Rel. Workman 's Camp Div., 543 P.2d 182 (Wyo. 1979) ("As has been the law of
this state since 1876, marriages outside the state which are valid therein are valid in this state.").
38. In contravention of its own statute, however, Wyoming does not recognize legal
marriages of same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions. For example, Plaintiffs Cora
9
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 9 of 21
and Nonie were legally married in Iowa. But when Cora, who is a Wyoming state employee,
applied to add Nonie to Cora's health and dental insurance coverage, she was informed that
Nonie "does not qualify as a dependent as defined by the State of Wyoming."
Harms Caused by Wyoming's Laws Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage and
Refusing to Recognize Same-Sex Couples' Valid Out-of-State Marriages
39. The Plaintiff couples are residents of Wyoming who experience the same joys and
challenges of family life as their neighbors, co-workers, and other community members who
may marry freely and whose legal marriages are respected under Wyoming law. The Plaintiff
couples, and other same-sex couples represented in interest by Wyoming Equality, are
productive, contributing citizens who support their families and nurture their children, but must
do so without the same legal shelter, dignity, and respect afforded by Wyoming to other families
through access to the universally celebrated status of marriage.
40. Wyoming's exclusion of the Plaintiffs from marriage, and Defendants'
enforcement of that exclusion, as well as Wyoming' s refusal to respect the marriages of legally
married same-sex couples from other jurisdictions, subject the Plaintiff couples to an inferior
"second class" status as Wyoming citizens relative to the rest of the community. These laws
deprive the Plaintiff couples and their children of equal dignity, security, and legal protections
afforded to other Wyoming families.
41. Plaintiffs Cora and Nonie were manied in Iowa in 2009 and would be recognized
as such under Wyoming law but for the fact that they are a same-sex couple. Instead, they are
treated as legal strangers to one another under Wyoming law.
42. Plaintiffs Carl and Rob were married in Canada on July 16, 2010, and would be
recognized as such under Wyoming law but for the fact that they are a same-sex couple. Instead,
they are treated as legal strangers to one another under Wyoming law.
43. Plaintiffs Ivan and Chuck went to the Laramie County Clerk's office to apply for
a marriage license on February 27,2014. Defendant Lathrop, directly or through her authorized
agent, informed Ivan and Chuck that they could not apply for a marriage license because they
were a same-sex couple. On March 3, 2014, Defendant Lathrop called Ivan and Chuck to inform
them that they could apply for a marriage license, but that the application would likely be denied
because Ivan and Chuck are a same-sex couple. Ivan and Chuck applied for a license later that
day, but Defendant Lathrop did not issue them a license. Defendant Lathrop has acknowledged
that she has a duty to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples such as Ivan and Chuck, but
10
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 10 of 21
has not issued a license to Ivan and Chuck because Wyoming statute only allows marriage
between "a male and a female person." Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101.
44. Plaintiffs Anne and Bonnie went to the Laramie County Clerk's office to apply
for a marriage license on February 27, 2014. Defendant Lathrop, directly or through her
authorized agent, informed Anne and Bonnie that they could not apply for a marriage license
because they were a same-sex couple. On March 3, 2014, Defendant Lathrop, directly or
through her authorized agent, called Anne and Bonnie to inform them that they could apply for a
marriage license, although the application would likely be denied because Anne and Bonnie are a
same-sex couple. Anne and Bonnie applied for a license on March 4, 2014, but Defendant
Lathrop would not issue a license. Defendant Lathrop has acknowledged that she has a duty to
issue marriage licenses to qualified couples such as Anne and Bonnie, but has not issued a
license to Anne and Bonnie because Wyoming statute only allows marriage between "a male and
a female person." Wyo. Stat. 20-1 -101.
45. In addition to stigmatizing an entire class of Wyoming's population as second-
class citizens, Wyoming's prohibition on marriage by same-sex couples, and its refusal to
recognize valid marriages from other jurisdictions, deprive same-sex couples of critically
important rights and responsibilities that married couples rely upon to secure their marriage
commitment and safeguard their fami lies. By way of example, and without limitation, san1e-sex
partners are denied:
a. The right to spousal insurance coverage and benefits, when spousal benefits are
otherwise available. Wyo. Stat. 9-3-209.
b. The right to be provided for by their spouse during marriage. Wyo. Stat. 20-3-
101.
c. The right to a court-ordered equitable distribution of property upon the dissolution
of the marriage. Wyo. Stat. 20-2-114.
d. The right to inherit a share of the estate of a spouse who dies without a will.
Wyo. Stat. 2-4-101.
e. The right to receive a distribution of the property of a deceased spouse, free from
testamentary disposition. Wyo. Stat. 2-5-101 and 2-7-723.
f. The right to priority in appointment as the personal representative of the estate of
a spouse who dies without a will. Wyo. Stat. 2-4-201.
1 1
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 11 of 21
g. The right to be a presumed parent to a child born to a spouse during marriage.
Wyo. Stat. 20-1-113.
h. The right to file ajoint adoption petition. Wyo. Stat. 1-22-104.
1. The right to have priority when making medical decisions for an ill or
incapacitated spouse without an advance health care directive. Wyo. Stat. 35-
22-406.
J. The right to receive certain worker's compensation benefits for a deceased spouse
who died as a result of a work-related accident. Wyo. Stat. 27-14-403.
k. The right of one spouse to be protected from having to testify against the other.
Wyo. Stat. 1-12-104.
1. The right of spouses of military personnel to be eligible for licensure in Wyoming
based on experience in another state. Wyo. Stat. 33-1-117.
m. The right to rely on a spouse's residency for purposes of obtaining a resident
hunting and fishing license, and to fish on certain property of a spouse without a
fishing license. Wyo. Stat. 23-1-107 and 23-2-208.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
First Claim for Relief:
Wyoming's Ban on Marriage by Same-Sex Couples Deprives the
Unmarried Plaintiffs of Their Rights to Due Process under the Wyoming Constitution
46. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs of
this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
4 7. Wyoming Statute 20-1-101 and all other sources of state law that preclude
marriage for same-sex couples violate the Due Process guarantees of the Wyoming Constitution,
both facially and as applied to the Plaintiff couples. Wyo. Const. art. 1, 6.
48. The right to marry the unique person of one's choice and to direct the course of
one's life without undue government restriction is one of the fundamental rights protected by
Due Process. Defendants' actions prohibiting the Plaintiff couples from entering marriage
directly and impermissibly infringe upon the Plaintiff couples' choice of whom to marry,
interfering with a core, life-altering, and intimate personal choice.
49. Due Process also protects choices central to personal dignity, privacy, and
autonomy, including each individual's fundamental liberty interests in family integrity and
intimate association. Defendants' actions prohibiting the Plaintiff couples from entering
12
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 12 of 21
marriage directly and impermissibly infringe upon the Plaintiff couples' deeply intimate,
personal, and private decisions regarding family life, and preclude them from obtaining full
liberty, dignity, privacy, and security for themselves, their family, and their parent-child
relationships.
50. As Wyoming's Governor and chief executive officer, Defendant Mead's duties
and actions to enforce Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, including those
actions taken pursuant to his responsibility for the policies and actions of the executive branch
relating to, for example and without limitation, health insurance coverage, vital records, tax
obligations, and state employee benefits programs, violate the Unmarried Plaintiffs' fundamental
right to marry and fundamental interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity,
and intimate association. The actions of Defendant Fausset and Defendant Urquidez likewise
violate the Unmarried Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry and fundamental interests in liberty,
dignity, privacy, autonomy, famil y integrity, and intimate association.
51. As the clerk of Laramie County, Wyoming, Defendant Lathrop ensures
compliance with Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage by, for example,
refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This violates the Unmarried Plaintiffs'
fundamental right to marry and fundamental interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy,
family integrity, and intimate association.
52. Defendants cannot satisfy the requirements of Due Process because Wyoming's
exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not rationally related to any legitimate
governmental interest and thus cannot survive even rational basis review, much less the
heightened level of scrutiny that applies to deprivation of the fundamental right to marry and
interference with fundamental interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity,
and intimate association.
53. The Unmarried Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them ineparable harm, and the
Unmarried Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
Second Claim for Relief:
Wyoming's Failure to Recognize the Marriages of the Married Plaintiffs
Violates Their Rights to Due Process under the Wyoming Constitution
54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs of
this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
13
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 13 of 21
55. Plaintiffs Cora and Nonie are lawfully married w1der laws of the state of Iowa.
56. Plaintiffs Carl and Rob are lawfully married under the laws of Canada.
57. When a marriage is legally entered into in another state or country, numerous
rights, responsibilities, benefits, privileges, and protections attach to that status under state and
federal law regardless of where the married couple chooses to live within the United States.
Once a couple enters into a valid marriage, the couple has a libe1ty interest in their marital status
that is protected by Due Process.
58. The Married Plaintiffs in this case have a protected liberty interest and property
interest in their lawful marital status and in the comprehensive protections and obligations that
marriage provides.
59. While Wyoming law expressly states that " [a]ll marriage contracts which are
valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state," Wyo. Stat. 20-1-
111 , in practice the legal marriages of the Married Plaintiffs have been treated as non-existent
and without any legal effect or status in Wyoming. This practice effectively strips the Married
Plaintiffs of a valuable and fundamental legal status that was conferred on them when they
entered into a valid marriage in another jurisdiction, and deems them legal strangers to each
other under Wyoming law.
60. Moreover, Wyoming's refusal to recognize the valid marriages of the Married
Plaintiffs also impermissibly burdens and interferes with their exercise of the fundamental right
to marry in violation of Due Process. Wyo. Canst. art. 1, 6.
61. Accordingly, Wyoming's refusal to recognize the valid marriages of these
Plaintiffs, and Defendants' actions effecting this refusal, impermissibly deprive the Married
Plaintiffs oftheir fundamental liberty and property interests in their marriages, and the
comprehensive protections afforded by marriage, in violation of Due Process.
62. Defendants cannot satisfy the requirements of Due Process because Wyoming's
refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages entered into in other jurisdictions is not rationally
related to any legitimate governmental interest and thus cannot survive even rational basis
review, much less the heightened level of scrutiny that applies to deprivation of the fundamental
right to marry and interference with fundamental interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy,
family integrity, and intimate association.
14
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 14 of 21
63. The Married Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm, and the
Married Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
Third Claim for Relief:
Wyoming's Ban on Marriage by Same-Sex Couples Deprives Plaintiffs of Their Rights to
Equal Protection of the Laws under the Wyoming Constitution
64. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs of
this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
65. Wyoming Statute 20-1- 101 and all other sources of state law or practice that
preclude marriage by same-sex couples violate the equal protection guarantees of the Wyoming
Constitution both facially and as applied to the Plaintiffs. Wyo. Canst. art. 1, 2, 3.
66. Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and Defendants'
actions effecting this exclusion deny same-sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprive
their families of a critical safety net of rights and responsibilities.
67. Wyoming brands same-sex couples and their children as second-class citizens
through government-imposed stigma. Wyoming fosters private bias and discrimination by
instructing all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that
their relationships and families are less worthy than others. Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex
couples from marriage and Defendants' actions enforcing this exclusion reflect moral
disapproval and animus toward same-sex couples, and an improper purpose to impose inequality
on same-sex couples and their children.
68. Same-sex couples such as the Plaintiff couples are similar to opposite-sex couples
in all of the characteristics relevant to marriage. Committed same-sex couples make the same
commitment to one another as other couples. They build their lives together, plan their futures
together, and hope to grow old together, caring for one another physically, emotionally, and
financially. The Unmarried Plaintiffs seek to marry for the same types of reasons, and to provide
the same legal shelter to their families, as opposite-sex spouses.
69. Same-sex couples such as the Plaintiff 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 opposite-sex couples and their children. For the
many children being raised by same-sex couples, the tangible resources and societal esteem that
marriage confers on families is no less precious than for children of opposite-sex couples.
15
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 15 of 21
70. Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage discriminates against
the Plaintiffs with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry the person of one's
choice, and with respect to their liberty interests in personal autonomy, and family integrity,
association, and dignity. Such discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny. Wyoming's
disparate treatment of same-sex couples cannot survive such scrutiny, and indeed cannot survive
even rational basis review.
71. Wyoming' s laws barring same-sex couples from marriage also unlawfully
discriminate against Wyoming couples as a class by excluding them from marriage or any other
form of relationship recognition on the basis of sexual orientation and sex.
72. The Unmarried Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm, and the
Unmarried Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
A. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
73. Wyoming's law barring same-sex couples from marriage targets same-sex
Wyoming couples as a class by excluding them from marriage or any other form of relationship
recognition on the basis of sexual orientation.
74. Lesbians and gay men have suffered a long and painful history of discrimination
in Wyoming and across the United States. Laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation
should be subjected to heightened equal protection scrutiny for numerous reasons.
75. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons are a discrete and insular minority, and strong
ongoing prejudice against them continues to seriously curtail the political processes that might
ordinarily be relied upon to protect them. In Wyoming, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons lack
any express statutory protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodations,
and housing.
76. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual's ability to perform in or
contribute to society. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one' s
identity and autonomy that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon or change it
(even if that were possible) as a condition of equal treatment under the law.
77. Wyoming's statute excluding same-sex couples from marriage constitutes
discrimination based upon sexual orientation and is unlawful under the Wyoming Constitution
because it denies same-sex couples equal protection under the laws of Wyoming.
16
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 16 of 21
78. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage based on sexual orientation
cannot survive heightened equal protection scrutiny because the State of Wyoming crumot offer a
persuasive showing that the exclusion or practice is essential to achieving a compelling state
interest.
79. Moreover, because the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage does not
rationally advance any legitimate government interest at all, the exclusion violates the equal
protection guarantees of the Wyoming Constitution even under rational basis review.
B. Discrimination Based on Sex
80. Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage discriminates against
the Plaintiff couples on the basis of sex, barring the Plaintiff couples from marriage solely
because each of the individual Plaintiffs wishes to marry a life partner of the san1e sex. The sex-
based restriction is plain on the face of the Wyoming's law, which restricts marriage to "a male
and a female person." Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101.
81. Because of these sex-based classifications, Anne is precluded from marrying her
devoted life partner Bonnie because Bonnie is a woman; were Bonnie a man, she could marry
Anne. Likewise, Ivan is precluded from marrying his devoted life partner Chuck because Chuck
is a man; were Chuck a woman, he could marry I van.
82. Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage also serves the
impermissible purpose of enforcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes by excluding the Plaintiff
couples from the benefits of marriage because the individual Plaintiffs do not conform to sex-
based stereotypes that women should be attracted to, form intimate relationships with, and marry
men rather than other women, and that men should be attracted to, form intimate relationships
with, and marry women rather thru1 other men. The exclusion of same-sex couples from
marriage also perpetuates and enforces conformity to stereotypes concerning the roles that men
and women, respectively, should play within marriage and family life.
83. Given that there are no longer significant legal distinctions between the duties of
husbands and wives under Wyoming law, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility
requirements for marriage.
84. The exclusion of the Plaintiff couples from marriage based on the individual
Plaintiffs' sex and the enforcement of gender-based stereotypes cannot survive the heightened
17
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 17 of 21
scrutiny required for sex-based discrimination, nor is it rationally related to any legitimate
governmental purpose.
Fourth Claim for Relief:
Wyoming's Failure to Recognize the Marriages of the Plaintiffs Who Are Lawfully
Married in Other Jurisdictions Violates Their Rights to
Equal Protection of the Laws under the Wyoming Constitution
85. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs of
this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
86. Wyoming's practice of refusing to recognize legal same-sex marriages entered
into in other jurisdictions is unlawful discrimination and violates the equal protection guarantees
of the Wyoming Constitution. Wyo. Const. ati. 1, 2, 3.
87. While the states have traditionally had the authority to regulate marriage, that
authority "must respect the constitutional rights of persons," and is "subject to constitutional
guarantees." Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2691.
88. Like many other couples, same-sex couples are often parents raising children.
Plaintiffs Nonie and Cora have children.
89. The principal purpose and effect of Wyoming's refusal to recognize same-sex
marriages lawfully performed in other jurisdictions "is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned
marriages and make them unequal." Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. These laws "impose a
disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages
made lawful by the unquestioned authority of [other] States." Id. at 2693. Same-sex couples
raising children should not be forced to raise their children under the stigma imposed by
Wyoming's refusal to recognize their marriages. !d.
90. If Cora and Nonie had devoted life partners who were men, there is no question
that their marriages would be recognized in Wyoming. Likewise, if Carl and Rob had devoted
life partners who were women, there is no question that their marriages would be recognized in
Wyoming. Wyoming's refusal to recognize the lawful marriages of the Married Plaintiffs
discriminates based on sex and sexual orientation.
91. Wyoming's refusal to recognize the lawful marriages of the Married Plaintiffs
also discriminates against the class of legally married persons and discriminates against the
Married Plaintiffs with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry the person of
one' s choice and fundamental liberty interests in personal autonomy, dignity, privacy, family
integrity, and intimate association.
18
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 18 of 21
92. Wyoming's practice of singling out legally married same-sex couples in order to
exclude their marriages from recognition cannot survive heightened scrutiny under the equal
protection provisions of the Wyoming Constitution because the State of Wyoming cannot offer a
persuasive showing that the exclusion or practice is essential to achieving a compelling state
interest.
93. Moreover, because excluding legally married same-sex couples from recognition
does not serve any legitimate government interest at all, the practice violates the equal protection
guarantees of the Wyoming Constitution even under rational basis review. A purpose to harm a
minority class of persons cannot justify disparate treatment of that group because it is not a
legitimate governmental interest. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996) ; Windsor, 133 S.
Ct. at 2693.
94. The Married Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm, and the
Married Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
Fifth Claim for Relief:
Defendants' Failure to Recognize the Marriages of the Married Plaintiffs
Violates Wyoming Statute Section 20-1-111
95. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs of
this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
96. Generally Wyoming does not question the legitimacy of marriages from other
states that are valid under the other state's laws. Indeed, Wyoming Statute specifically provides
that marriages lawfully entered into in another state or country will be fully recognized in
Wyoming. Wyo. Stat. 20-1-111.
97. Defendants' refusal to recognize the Married Plaintiffs' marriages-which were
lawfully entered into in Iowa (Cora and Nonie) and Canada (Carl and Rob) and would be treated
in these jurisdictions in a manner identical to opposite-sex marriages- violates Wyo. Stat. 20-
1-111.
98. The Married Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm, and Cora
and Nonie are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
19
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 19 of 21
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment:
99. Declaring that the provisions of and enforcement by Defendants of Wyoming's
laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage, including Wyoming Statute 20-1 -101, and
any other sources of state law that exclude same-sex couples from marrying violate the
Unmarried Plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Wyoming Constitution;
100. Declaring that the practice, by Defendants and their subordinates, of refusing to
recognize the valid out-of-state marriages of the Married Plaintiffs and other legally married
same-sex couples violates Plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
of the Wyoming Constitution;
101. Declaring that the Married Plaintiffs' marriages are valid in the State of
Wyoming, in accordance with Wyoming Statute 20-1-111;
102. Permanently enjoining enforcement by Defendants of Wyoming Statute 20-1-
101, and any other sources of state law, policy, or practice that exclude the Unmarried Plaintiffs
from marriage or that refuse recognition of the marriages of the Married Plaintiffs;
103. Requiring Defendants to permit issuance of marriage licenses to the Unmarried
Plaintiffs, pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to opposite-sex couples,
and to recognize the marriages validly entered into by the Married Plaintiffs;
104. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant
to Wyo. Stat. 1-37-112, and other applicable laws; and
105. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: March 5, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
T e ~ ~ BarNo. 6-2796
ZUBROD LAW OFFICE, PC
1907 House A venue
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Telephone: (307) 778-2557
Facsimile: (307) 778-8225
Email: zubrod@aol.com
20
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 20 of 21
L. James Lyman*
Katherine Ross
Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4400
Denver, Colorado 80202-13 70
Telephone: (303) 863-1000
Facsimile: (303) 832-0428
Email: james.lyman@aporter.com
Qusair Mohamedbhai, Wyo. Bar No. 6-3809
Siddhartha Rathod*
RA THOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC
1518 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 578-4400
Facsimile: (303) 578-4401
Email: qm@rmlawyers.com
Shannon P. Minter*
Christopher F. Stoll*
NATIONAL CENTER FOR
LESBIAN RIGHTS
870 Market Street, Suite 3 70
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 365-1335
Facsimile: (415) 392-8442
Email: sminter@nclrights.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Admission Pro Hac Vice Pending
21
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 21 of 21
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-2 Filed 10/13/14 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-2 Filed 10/13/14 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 26-2 Filed 10/13/14 Page 3 of 3