District Court Of Guam: Mitchell F. Thompson, Esq. R. Todd Thompson, Esq
Titre original : 1:15-cv-00009 #1
Transféré par Equality Case Files
Description : Doc 1 - Complaint
enregistrerEnregistrer 1:15-cv-00009 #1 pour plus tard
1:14-cv-00424 #55 - Order
2:14-cv-02518 #107
14-3779 - Missouri Plaintiffs' Letter
7:15-cv-00056 #18
14-3779 Missouri Response
14-823 Supreme Court Petition North Carolina marriage case
8:15-cv-00158 #1 - Complaint
1:14-cv-00208 #65 Order Clarifying Judgment
4 16 10 Hafter v SBN Complaint NVD 553 Hafter0420
labor law.docx
rhetorical analysis final
DebraP_FinalDraft
Illinois Supreme Court Decision on the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act
DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
Mitchell F. Thompson, Esq.
R. Todd Thompson, Esq.
Thompson Gutierrez & Alcantara, P.C.
238 Archbishop Flores Street
Suite 801, DNA Building
Hagatna, Guam 96910
Telephone: (671) 472-2089/90
&Ux-i 'L--&SH '&j3p
APR 1 3 2015
JEANNE G.QUINATA
William D. Pesch, Esq.
Guam Family Law Office
173 Aspinall Avenue, Suite 203
Facsimile: (671)477-5873
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kathleen M. Aguero and
Loretta M. Pangelinan
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
TERRITORY OF GUAM
KATHLEEN M. AGUERO and LORETTA
CIVIL CASE NO.
M. PANGELINAN,
Plaintiffs,
EDDIE BAZA CALVO in his official capacity
as Governor of Guam and CAROLYN
GARRIDO in her official capacity as
Registrar in the Office of Vital Statistics,
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Defendants.
Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 25
Plaintiffs KATHLEEN M. AGUERO and LORETTA M. PANGELINAN, by
and through their attorneys, file this Complaint against Defendants, EDDIA BAZA CALVO, in
his official capacity as Governor of Guam, and CAROLYN GARRIDO, in her official capacity
as Registrar of the Office of Vital Statistics, and allege as follows:
Plaintiffs are a loving, committed same-sex couple who reside in Guam. They
bring this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, to challenge the discriminatory denial of
their freedom to marry in the Territory of Guam. In defiance of the mandates of the U.S.
Constitution and the rule of law, the Government of Guam ("GovGuam") will not allow same-
sex couples, including Plaintiffs Kathleen M. Aguero and Loretta M. Pangelinan, to exercise
their fundamental right to marry. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief for
the violation of their guarantees of liberty and equality under both the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution and 48 U.S.C. Sections 1421b (e), (n) and (u), caused by
Defendants' interpretation and enforcement of 10 G.C.A. Section 3207(h) and any other source
of law that precludes Plaintiffs from marrying in Guam (hereinafter the "Marriage Ban").
Despite the clear pronouncement from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit that laws "preventing same-sex couples from marrying . . . impose profound legal,
financial, social and psychic harms" and [l]aws that treat people differently based on sexual
orientation are unconstitutional unless a 'legitimate purpose . . . overcome[s]' the injury
inflicted by the law on lesbians and gays and their families," Latta v. Otter, 11\ F.3d 456, 476
(9th Cir. 2014), GovGuam has precluded Plaintiffs from marrying and refused to accord their
relationship the same legal status as that of other residents, based solely on the fact that they
are lesbians in a same-sex relationship.
The right to marry the person of one's choice and to direct the course of one's
life in this intimate realm without undue government interference is one of the fundamental
liberty interests protected for all by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
United States Constitution. The Commonwealth's exclusion of Plaintiff Couple and other
Banned Couples from marriage based on their sexual orientation and/or sex of the individuals
in the couples violates their fundamental right to marry without any compelling, important or
even legitimate justification.
Civil marriage plays a unique role in society as a universally recognized and
celebrated hallmark of a couple's commitment to build family life together. It confers upon
couples a dignity and status of immense import. Plaintiffs have formed a committed, enduring
family bond equally worthy of the respect afforded by GovGuam to different-sex couples
through access to the status of marriage. GovGuam, without any adequate justification, has
enacted, and Defendants have interpreted and enforced the laws in ways that single out Guam's
gay, lesbian, and bisexual residents and deprives them of the right to marry based solely on
their sexual orientation and/or sex.
This exclusion from marriage and relegation to second-class status inflicts
serious and irreparable harms upon Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples and their children.
Plaintiffs are not married and wish to marry for the same reasons as different-sex couples: to
publicly declare their love and commitment before their family, friends, and community, and to
give one another and any children that they may raise in the future, the security and legal
protections that marriage provides. Plaintiffs seek the freedom to marry the one unique and
irreplaceable person each loves, and thereby to assume the responsibilities and obtain the
myriad protections, obligations, and benefits conferred upon married couples and upon their
children under Guam and federal law.
Because the freedom to marry is one of the vital personal rights central to the
orderly pursuit of happiness, Plaintiffs seek equal access to the freedom to marry to eliminate
the myriad serious harms inflicted on Plaintiffs and their families by the Marriage Ban and
Defendants' enforcement of it Plaintiffs seek equal access to the freedom to marry as the only
means to eliminate the myriad harms inflicted upon them and other same-sex couples by
GovGuam's Marriage Ban and Defendants' enforcement of it.
KATHLEEN M. AGUERO ("Kate") and LORETTA M. PANGELINAN ("Lo")
are individuals who together are a committed same-sex couple residing in Yigo, Guam. Both
were born and raised on Guam. Kate works for a local financial institution, and Lo runs her
own maintenance and cleaning firm. They have been in a committed relationship for over nine
Both Kate and Lo are registered with GovGuam's Department of Public Health
and Social Services ("DPHSS") as foster parents, and they have cared for a number of foster
children over the years. Kate and Lo feel that it is important to give back to the community by
helping to raise and care for children in need on Guam. They are currently caring for three
foster children.
Kate and Lo wish to marry each other because they love each other and are
committed to each other for life.
While Kate and Lo could travel thousands of miles to another state where same-
sex marriage is recognized to get married, such travel would be costly and difficult to arrange,
given their busy schedules, responsibilities, and limited financial resources. More importantly,
they want to be able to invite their friends and family on Guam to bear witness to their love and
commitment for each other in the same way that different-sex couples in Guam are able to do,
through marriage. Kate and Lo believe that they should not have to leave Guam to have their
love and commitment recognized
Defendant EDDIA BAZA CALVO is sued in his official capacity as Governor
of the Territory of Guam. Governor Calvo is vested with the executive power of the Territory,
has the duty to see that the Territory's laws are faithfully executed, has general supervision and
control of all departments and agencies of the executive branch of GovGuam, including the
power to hire and terminate all employees of the executive branch under 42 U.S.C. Section
1422. Governor Calvo is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and was
acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
Defendant CAROLYN GARR1DO is sued in her official capacity as Registrar
of the Office of Vital Statistics within the GovGuam DPHSS.
Ms. Garrido's duties include
issuing marriage licenses, and maintaining records relating to marriage licenses. Ms. Garrido
must ensure compliance through all of these functions with relevant Guam laws, including
those that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Ms. Garrido is a "person" within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and was acting under color of law at all times relevant to
this complaint.
Each of the Defendants, and those subject to their supervision, direction, and
control, intentionally performed, participated in, aided and/or abetted in some manner the acts
alleged herein, proximately caused the harm alleged herein, and will continue to injure
Plaintiffs irreparably if not enjoined.
Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988 to redress
the deprivation under color of law of rights secured by the United States Constitution and
under 48 U.S.C. Sections 1421b (e), (n) and (u).
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy arise under
the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) because all
Defendants reside within the District of Guam and the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs' claims
took place within the District of Guam.
This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled
in Guam.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs are residents of Guam who experience the same joys and shoulder the
same challenges of family life as their heterosexual neighbors, co-workers, and other
community members who freely may marry. Plaintiffs are productive, contributing citizens
who support their families and nurture their children, but must do so without the same dignity
and respect afforded by the Territory to other families through access to the universally
celebrated status of marriage. GovGuam's exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage subjects
Plaintiffs to legal vulnerability and related stress, while depriving them and their children of
equal dignity and security. GovGuam sends a purposeful message that the Territory views
lesbians and gay men and their children as second-class citizens who are undeserving of the
legal sanction, respect, and support that different-sex spouses and their family enjoy.
Plaintiffs' Attempts to Marry and Marriages in Other Jurisdictions.
But for the fact that they are of the same-sex, each unmarried Plaintiff is legally
qualified to marry under the law of Guam and wishes to marry in the Territory. Each Plaintiff
is over the requisite age of 18, neither Plaintiff is precluded from marriage as a result of being
closely related to her life partner, and no Plaintiff is recognized by Guam as having another
spouse.
On April 8, 2015, Plaintiffs appeared in person at the Office of Vital Statistics
within DPHSS in Mangilao, Guam to seek a marriage license. They both presented valid forms
of identification to prove their names and ages, completed a marriage application, and stood
ready to pay the required fee. When the couple requested a marriage license, the employee
working behind the counter refused their request, citing 10 G.C.A. Section 3207(h) which
defines marriage as between opposite sex couples and well as a six-year old opinion letter from
the Acting Attorney General of Guam addressing the matter of "common law" marriages in
Guam. Based on these reasons, and no others, the employee refused to accept Plaintiffs' Guam
Marriage License Application; and Plaintiffs were thereby denied the opportunity to obtain a
marriage license based solely on GovGuam's purported statutory definition of marriage as "the
legal union of persons of opposite sex," to the exclusion of same-sex couples.
Marriage Ban Inflicts Profound Harms and Injury Upon Plaintiffs and
Other Same-Sex Couples.
Barring same-sex couples from marriage disqualifies them from critically
important rights and responsibilities under Guam law that different-sex couples rely upon to
protect one another and themselves, to secure their commitment to each other, and to safeguard
their families. Marriage is the only route to access many rights and responsibilities; for others,
marriage is the least complex and least expensive route. By way of example only, the Marriage
Ban denies same-sex couples who wish to marry:
The ability to safeguard family resources under an array of laws that
protect spousal finances, including for example, the ability to file jointly to reduce tax liability,
and tax benefits when transferring or inheriting interests in real and personal property; the
benefit of a homestead exemption; an exemption for a portion of a deceased spouse's personal
estate from the deceased's debts or liabilities; and, the ability for the surviving spouse of a
workers compensation beneficiary to receive compensation.;
Family health insurance coverage, including spousal health benefits;
The benefit of the presumption that both spouses are parents to a child
born during the marriage, including the automatic listing of a birth mother's spouse as a parent
on a child's birth certificate;
A streamlined and relatively inexpensive process for bringing children
into the family through adoption, whether through joint adoption, or by one spouse adopting
another spouse's child through a step-parent adoption;
Retirement benefits, and surviving spouse annuity benefits for public
Family leave for a public employee to care for a spouse;
In the event that a couple separates, access to an orderly dissolution
employees;
process for terminating the relationship, assuring an equitable division of the couple's assets
and debts, and adjudication of issues relating to custody, visitation, and support with respect to
any children the couple may have;
The ability to make caretaking decisions for one another in times of
serious illness, including priority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse;
The ability to make decisions for one another at the time of death,
including the ability to authorize an autopsy, the automatic right to make burial decisions and
other decisions concerning disposition and handling of remains of deceased spouses; and
The right to inheritance under the laws of intestacy and the right of a
surviving spouse to an elective share.
The Marriage Ban not only denies Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples and
their children access to protections, benefits, rights, and responsibilities afforded to different
sex couples and their children under Guam law, it also denies them eligibility for a host of
federal rights and responsibilities that span the entire United States Code and federal
throughout the more than 1,000 statutes and federal regulations relating to marriage - including
laws that pertain to Social Security benefits, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyrights, and
veterans benefits.
financial harm not only to same-sex couples but to their children as well.
Unmarried same-sex couples are denied recognition for virtually all purposes
Many of these deprivations drain family economic resources, causing
Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage and Consignment of SameSex Couples to an Inferior Status.
In addition to the tangible harms listed above, same-sex couples are denied
unique social significance and recognition that marriage conveys.
Without access to the
familiar language and legal label of marriage, Plaintiffs are unable instantly or adequately to
communicate to others the depth and permanence of their commitment, or to obtain respect for
that commitment as other do simply by invoking their married status.
Plaintiffs' exclusion from marriage frustrates their life goals and dreams, their
personal happiness, and their self-determination.
For example, Plaintiffs have family and
friends eagerly awaiting the day that they can attend the couple's wedding in Guam.
Moreover, like Plaintiffs, many same-sex couples are rearing children in Guam.
The substantive and dignitary inequities imposed on committed same-sex couples include
particular harms for same-sex couples' children, who are equally deserving of the stability,
permanence, and legitimacy that children of different-sex spouses enjoy.
affords official sanctuary to the family unit, offering parents and children a familiar and public
means of demonstrating to third parties a legal basis for the parent-child relationship.
Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 10 of 25
denying same-sex couples marriage, GovGuam reinforces the view held by some that the
family bonds that tie same-sex parents and their children are less consequential, enduring and
meaningful than those of different-sex parents and their children. Same-sex parents and their
children thus are deprived of the family security that inheres in a ready and familiar method of
communicating to others the significance and permanence of their familial relationships.
Same-sex couples and their children accordingly must live with the vulnerability and stress
inflicted by the ever-present possibility that others may question their familial relationshipin
social, educational, and medical settings and in moments of crisisin a way that spouses can
avoid by simple reference to being married.
Children from a young age understand that marriage signifies an enduring
family unit, and likewise understand when GovGuam has deemed a class of families as less
worthy than other families undeserving of marriage, and not entitled to the same societal
recognition and support as other families.
marking the children of same-sex couples with a badge of inferiority that invites disrespect in
school on the playground, and in every other sphere of their lives.
GovGuam has no adequate interest to justify
GovGuam refuses same-sex couples the same opportunity to celebrate their
marriage with official governmental sanction, which can negatively affect how their family
members and others view the couples' relationship. By treating same-sex couples as unworthy
of state-sanctioned solemnization, GovGuam denies them the dignity, respect, and stature
afforded to different-sex couples who can marry.
The government is a powerful teacher of discrimination to others. Bearing the
imprimatur of the government, GovGuam's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage also causes
others to follow the government's example in discriminating against them. Many private
entities defer to GovGuam's bestowment of marital status in defining "family" for purposes of
an array of important benefits, often resulting in the exclusion of same-sex couples and their
children from important safety nets such as private employer-provided health insurance for
family members. GovGuam's also encourages disrespect of committed same-sex couples and
their children by others in workplaces, schools, businesses, and other major arenas of life, in
ways that would be less likely to occurand more readily corrected if marriage were available to
same-sex couples.
Legitimate Territory Purpose.
The Territory's Exclusion of Plaintiffs from Marriage Is Not Narrowly
Tailored to a Compelling State Purpose or Even Reasonably Related to a
No legitimate, let alone important or compelling, interest exists to exclude same-
sex couples from the historic and highly venerated institution of marriage. An individual's
capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship does not depend upon sexual
orientation or his or her sex in relation to his or her committed life partner, nor is there even
any legitimate interest justifying denial of spousal protections, rights, and responsibilities on
such bases.
GovGuam's decision to exclude same-sex couples from marriage bears no
relation to interests in parenting or child welfare.
Barring lesbians and gay men from civil marriage does not affect who becomes
a parent. Guam's same-sex couples can and do bear children through use of reproductive
technology that is available to same-sex and different-sex couples. They also bring children
into their families through foster care or adoption.
Parentage can be determined for all children regardless of marital status and
parents are required to support their children regardless of marital status. Moreover, marriage
has never been the sole province of couples who are parents.
jurisdiction in this country has ever restricted marriage to those capable of or intending to
procreate.
Neither GovGuam nor any
The consensus within the scientific community is that children and adolescents
reared by same-sex parents are as successful psychologically, emotionally, and socially as
children and adolescents raised by different-sex parents.
researchers in the field is that parenting abilities are not a function of gender, sexual
The consensus among respected
orientation, or biological connection.
This consensus is reflected by numerous leading organizations of child welfare,
medical, and mental health professionals, who have issued statements confirming that same-sex
parents are as effective as different-sex parents in rearing well-adjusted children and
adolescents.
distinction with respect to the parenting rights of same-sex and different-sex couples, as
evidenced by DPHSS's licensing of Plaintiffs to act as foster parents.
GovGuam's own public policy also incorporates this view by making no
Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of
different-sex spouses more secure. Different-sex spouses' children will continue to enjoy the
benefits that flow from their parents' marriage, regardless of whether same-sex couples are
permitted to marry.
Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does, however, harm same-sex
couples' children, including by branding their families as inferior or less deserving of respect,
and by encouraging private bias and discrimination.
GovGuam's interest in the welfare of children of lesbian and gay parents is as
great as its interest in the welfare of any other children. The family security that comes from
GovGuam's official recognition and support is no less important for same-sex parents and their
children than it is for different-sex parents and their children.
Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does nothing to protect or enhance
the rights of different-sex spouses. Different-sex spouses will continue to enjoy the same rights
and status conferred by marriage regardless of whether same-sex couples may marry,
unimpaired by the acknowledgement that this freedom belongs equally to lesbians and gay
As the Ninth Circuit held in Latta, neither history nor tradition can justify
GovGuam's discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples. 771 F.3d at 475-476. Marriage has
remained vital and enduring because of, not despite, its resiliency in response to a dynamic
society, as society and the courts have cast off prior restrictions on interracial marriage and
coverture. The right to Equal Protection of the law is not confined to historic notions of
equality, and no excuse for GovGuam's discriminatory restriction can be found in the ancient
pedigree of such discrimination.
Although GovGuam has a valid interest in protecting the public fisc, it may not
pursue that interest by making invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens without
adequate justification. Moreover, GovGuam not only lacks any such fiscal justification but
rather would likely accrue cost-savings by allowing same-sex couples to enter the institution of
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Deprivation of Equal Protection
on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Sex
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
(42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all of the preceding paragraphs
of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities
for purposesof seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, provides that no state shall deny to any person the equal
protection of the laws. This provision of the U.S. Constitution applies on Guam. 48 U.S.C.
Section 1421b (u). There is a separate statutory provision requiring equal protection of law in
Guam. 48 U.S.C. Section 1421b (n). The conduct of Defendants and their agents and all other
sources of law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples violates Plaintiffs' right to equal
protection of the laws by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and
As GovGuam's chief executive officer, Defendant Governor Calvo's duties and
actions to enforce Guam's discriminatory marriage ban violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights
to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right to equal protection under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1421b (n).
As the Registrar of the Office of Vital Statistics, Defendant Garrido's duties and
actions through denying a marriage license to Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples, violates
Plaintiffs' rights to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and under 48 U.S.C. Section 1421b
(n).
By acting intentionally to enforce GovGuam's discriminatory marriage ban,
each Defendant has set in motion, or has refused to terminate, acts by others to enforce and
implement those laws that Defendants know, or reasonably should know, will cause others to
inflict these constitutional injuries upon the Plaintiffs. Through this conduct, each Defendant
also knowingly has acquiesced in the constitutional deprivations of those that he or she
supervises, and has shown a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs, thereby
proximately causing them injury. No reasonable governmental official, in light of current
controlling law on Guam, would believe that it is lawful to deny a marriage license to a same-
sex couple such as Plaintiffs.
GovGuam's marriage ban, and Defendants' actions to enforce it, denies same-
sex couples equal dignity and respect and relegates them to a separate-and-unequal status that is
demonstrably inferior.
children as second-class citizens through a message of government-imposed stigma and causes
private bias and discrimination.
moral disapproval and antipathy toward lesbians and gay men.
GovGuam's marriage ban brands lesbians and gay men and their
GovGuam's marriage ban and Defendants' actions reflect
Same-sex couples, such as the plaintiffs, are identical to different-sex couples in
all of the characteristics relevant to marriage. Same-sex couples make the same commitment to
one another as different-sex couples. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples fall in love,
build their lives together, plan their futures together, and hope to grow old together. Like
different-sex couples, same-sex couples support one another emotionally and financially and
take care of one another physically when faced with injury or illness. The emotional, romantic,
and dignitary reasons Plaintiffs seek to marry are similar to those of different-sex couples who
choose to marry.
Like some different-sex couples, some same-sex couples are parents raising
children together. Plaintiffs are raising three foster children jointly. Plaintiffs and their children
are equally worthy of the tangible rights and responsibilities, as well as the respect, dignity, and
concrete protections that access to marriage confers on different-sex couples and their children.
For the many children being raised by same-sex couples, the tangible resources and societal
esteem that access to marriage confers is no less precious than for children of different-sex
couples.
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
The Marriage Ban targets Guam's lesbian and gay residents as a class for
exclusion from marriage and discriminates against Plaintiffs based on their sexual orientation,
both facially and as applied.
Because "the laws at issue distinguish on their face between opposite-sex
couples, who are permitted to marry and whose out-of-state marriages are recognized, and
same-sex couples, who are not permitted to marry and whose marriages are not recognized,"
GovGuam's Marriage Ban "discriminate[s] on the basis of sexual orientation." Latta, 111 F.3d
at 467-468.
Within the Ninth Circuit, "classifications on the basis of sexual orientation are
subject to heightened scrutiny." Latta, 111 F.3d at 468. The exclusion of Plaintiffs and other
same-sex couples from marriage based on their sexual orientation is thus subject to heightened
scrutiny, which Defendants' conduct cannot withstand because the exclusion does not even
serve any legitimate governmental interests, let alone any important or compelling interests, nor
does it serve any such interests in an adequately-tailored manner.
Lesbians and gay men have suffered a long history of discrimination. They have
endured hostility and antipathy from both public and private parties. Being gay or lesbian has
been classified as a mental illness. The intimate relationships of same-sex couples have been
criminalized. Lesbian and gay civil servants have been purged from federal and municipal
employment. Lesbians and gay men disproportionately have been the victims of brutal hate
crimes.
Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait and is so fundamental to one's identity
and conscience that a person cannot be required to abandon it as a condition of equal treatment.
Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to
change through intervention. No credible evidence supports the notion that such interventions
are either effective or safe; indeed, they often are harmful and damaging. No mainstream
mental health professional organization approves interventions to change sexual orientation,
and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public
about these treatments.
Lesbians and gay men are a small minority of the population, and the legacy of
discrimination against them is evident in their ongoing relative vulnerability and lack of
political power. Lesbians and gay men lack statutory protection against discrimination in
employment, public accommodations, and housing at the federal level and in numerous states;
are systematically underrepresented in federal, state, and local democratic bodies; have been
stripped of the right to marry through state constitutional amendments and now have been
targeted through the voter initiative process more than any other group.
Discrimination Based on Sex
The Marriage Ban discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex, both
facially and as applied, by barring Plaintiffs from marriage on the basis of their sex. The sex-
based restriction is plain on the face of GovGuam's Marriage Ban, which defines marriage as a
"the legal union of persons of opposite sex." 10 G.C.A. Section 3207(h).
Because of these sex-based classifications, Kate is precluded from marrying the
person to whom she is devoted, solely because Kate is a woman and not a man; were Kate a
man, she could marry Lo. "A law that facially dictates that a man may do X while a woman
may not, or vice versa, constitutes, without more, a gender classification." Latta, 111 F.3d at
480 (Berzon, J., concurring).
GovGuam's Marriage Ban "also, implicitly and explicitly, draw[s] on 'archaic
and stereotypic notions' about the purportedly distinctive roles and abilities of men and
women." Latta, 111 F.3d at 485 (Berzon, J., concurring). As such, the Marriage Ban
impermissibly seeks to enforce conformity with gender stereotypes about the proper gender
roles for marriagenamely, that a man should marry a woman, and a woman marry a man
and, consequently, impermissibly excludes each Plaintiff from marriage with the one person
she loves, because of Plaintiffs' failure to conform to the prevailing and State-enforced
stereotype.
The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sex and the
enforcement of gender-based stereotypes cannot survive the heightened scrutiny required for
sex-based discrimination.
Discrimination in regard to Parental Status.
The Marriage Ban impermissibly restricts same-sex parents from establishing
parental status, for example through the parental presumption afforded when a child is born
into a marriage, on the bases of their parents' sex, sexual orientation, and marital status,
denying such parents and their children the dignity, legitimacy, security, support, and
protections available when parents can marry. GovGuam's differential treatment of families
and children based upon their parents' sex, sexual orientation, and marital status cannot survive
the heightened scrutiny required for classifications based on parental status.
Discrimination With Respect to Fundamental Rights and Liberty Interests
Secured by the Due Process Clause.
The Marriage Ban discriminates against Plaintiffs based on sexual orientation
and/or sex with respect to the fundamental right to marry and with respect to their liberty
interests in dignity, autonomy, and family integrity and association. Differential treatment with
respect to the exercise of fundamental rights and liberty interests, based on Plaintiffs' sexual
orientation and/or sex, subjects Defendants' conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny,
which Defendants' conduct cannot withstand.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Deprivation of Due Process
of this complaintas though fully set forth herein.
for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, bars the GovGuam, from depriving any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law (the "Due Process Clause"). This provision of
the U.S. Constitution applies on Guam. 48 U.S.C. Section 1421b (u). A separate statutory
provision sets forth that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law" in Guam. 48 U.S.C. Section 1421b(e). The conduct of Defendants and their
agents and all other sources of law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples violates
Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry and otherliberty interests.
The right to marry the unique and irreplaceable person of one's choice and to
direct the course of one's life in this intimate realm without undue government restriction is
one of the fundamental liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause. Indeed, the
essence of the fundamental right to marry is freedom of personal choice in selecting one's
Guam's Laws, 10 G.C.A. Section 3207(h), and all other sources of Guam law
that preclude same-sex couples from marrying on the basis of their member's sexual orientation
and/or sex violate the due process guarantee ofthe Fourteenth Amendment, both facially and as
applied to Plaintiffs.
impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs' choice of whom to marry, interfering with a core, life-
altering, and intimate personal choice.
Defendants' actions to enforce the Marriage Ban directly and
The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to personal dignity and
autonomy, including each individual's rights to family integrity and association. Defendants'
actions to enforce the Marriage Ban directly and impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs' deeply
intimate, personal, and private decisions regarding family life, and preclude them from
obtaining full liberty, dignity, and security for themselves and their families.
The duties and actions of Defendant Calvo, as Governor of the Territory of
Guam, and Defendant Garrido, as Registrar of the Office of Vital Statistics, to ensure
compliance with Guam's discriminatory Marriage Ban by, for example, denying same-sex
couples marriage licenses, violate Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry and rights to liberty,
dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process contained in the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Defendants cannot satisfy the Due Process Clause's decree that government's
denial of a fundamental right or substantial infringement of a liberty interest may be sustained
only upon a showing that the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or even
important governmental interest, as the Marriage Ban is not even tailored to any legitimate
interest at all.
Thus, Defendants, acting under color of law, are depriving Plaintiffs of rights
secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the right to due process under 48
U.S.C. Section 1421(b)(e).
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 57 and 65
This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants' present and
ongoing denial of equal treatment to Plaintiffs subjects them to serious and immediate harms,
warranting the issuance of declaratory relief.
Plaintiffs seek preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief to protect their
constitutional rights and avoid the injuries described above. A favorable decision enjoining
Defendants would redress and prevent the irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs identified herein, for
which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or in equity.
GovGuam will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry
and in recognizing the valid marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the
same terms as different-sex couples, whereas the hardship for Plaintiffs of being denied equal
treatment and relegated to a demonstrably inferior relationship status is severe, subjecting them
to an irreparable denial of their constitutional rights.
strongly in favor of Plaintiffs.
The balance of hardships thus tips
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment:
Declaring that the provisions and enforcement by Defendants of 10 G.C.A.
Section 3207(h) and any other sources of Guam law or regulation that exclude same-sex
couples from marriage or bar recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples entered into in
another jurisdiction violate Plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process Clause and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 48
U.S.C. Sections 1421b(e), and (n);
Preliminarily and permanently enjoining enforcement by Defendants of 10
G.C.A. Section 3207(h) and any other sources of Guam law or regulation that exclude same-
sex couples from marriage or bar recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples entered
into in another jurisdiction violate Plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process Clause and the Equal
U.S.C. Sections 1421b(e) and(n);
Requiring Defendants, in the their official capacities, to allow same-sex couples
to marry on the same terms as different-sex couples, and to recognize the valid marriages of
same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as the valid marriages of different-
sex couples from other jurisdictions;
Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees
pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and other applicable laws; and
Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The relief requested in this action is sought against each Defendant; each
Defendant's officers, employees, and agents; and against all persons acting in cooperation with
any Defendant, or under a Defendant's supervision, direction, or control.
Respectfully submitted this 13th day ofApril, 2015.
By.
MITCHELL F. THOMPSON
PIS3095.MFT
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS44 (Rev. 12/12)
The JS44civil cover sheet andtheinformation contained herein neither replace norsupplement thefiling andservice ofpleadings orother papers as required bylaw, except as
provided by local rules of court. Thisform, approved by theJudicial Conference of theUnited States inSeptember 1974, is required for theuseof theClerkof Courtfor the
purpose ofinitialing the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ONNEWPACE OFTHIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Kathleen M. Aguero and Loretta M. Pangelinan
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
Eddie Baza Caivo in his official capacity as Governor of Guam; and
Carolyn Garrido in her official capacity as Registrar in the Office of
Vital Statistics, Department of Public Health and Social Services
County ofResidence of First Listed Defendant
Hagatna. Guam
Yigo. Guam
{EXCEPT IN US PIMNTIFF CASES)
(IN US. I'MINl IFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name. Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (IfKnown)
Thompson Gutierrez & Alcantara, PC & Guam Family
Law Office (472-2089) 238 Archbishop Flores St.,
Suite 801, Hagatna, Guam 96910
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Placean "X" inOne BoxforPlaintiff
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an"X" inOne Box Only)
(For DiversityCases Only)
O I
(U.S. Government Not a Parly)
and One Boxfor Defendant)
_ RTF'^PEF
H 3 Federal Question
ovqjgr'l ^C 1 Incorporated or Principal Place
Citizen of This State
"EF
of Business In This Stale
(Indicate CiiisemhipofPartiesin Item III)
Citizen of Another Stale
Incorporated urn/ Principal Place
of Business In Another Stale
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Nation
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" inOne Has Only)
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
I SO Recovery of Overpayment
O 365 Personal Injury -
310 Airplane
O 315 Airplane Product
(Excludes Veterans)
O 370 Other Fraud
O 37 lTnith in Lending
195Contract Product Liability
O 360 Other Personal
Properly Damage
PRISONER PETITIONS
3 220 Foreclosure
O 230 Rcnl Lease & Ejectment
O 240 Torts to Land
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
O 24S Ton Product Liability
O 290 AllOtherReal Property
O 445 Amet. w/Disabilities
410 Antitrust
O 830 Patent
470 Racketeer Influenced and
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
Corrupt Organizations
840 Trademark
861 HIA( 1395(1)
O 862 Black Lung (923)
O 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
O 864 SSI D Title XVI
O 740 Railway Labor Acl
O 751 Family and Medical
O 460 Deportation
O 865 RSI (405(g))
8S0 Securities/Commodities/
O 890 Olher Statutory Actions
O 891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Leave Acl
O 720 Labor/Management
O 385 PropertyDamage
O 362 Personal Injury-
375 False Claims Act
O 820 Copyrights
O 380 Other Persona!
O 400 State Reapportionment
PERSONAL PROPERTY O 710 Fair Labor Standards
O 355 Motor Vehicle
O 210 Land Condemnation
O 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
Injury Product
196 Franchise
O 430 Banksand Banking
O 368 Asbestos Personal
of Veteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
O 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
O 340 Marine
O 34S Marine Product
153 Recovery ofOverpayment
O 690 Other
O 330 Federal Employers'
IS I Medicare Act
152Recoveryof Defaulted
O 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
O 367 Health Care,'
a 320 Assault. Libel &
& Enforcement of Judgment
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
Habeas Corpus:
O 790 Olher Labor Litigation
O 79| Employee Retirement
Income Security Acl
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
O 463 Alien Detainee
O 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
O 871 IRSThird Party
510 Motions to Vacate
O 530 General
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
a 950 Constitutionality of
O 535 Death Penalty
O 446 Amer. w/Disabilities 540 Mandamus & Other
O 550 Civil Rights
O 448 Education
O 555 Prison Condition
O S60 Civil Detainee -
O 462 NaturalizationApplication
465 Other Immigration
Conditions of
V. ORIGIN (Place an"X" inOne Box Only)
JS I Original
O 2 Removed from
Remanded from
G 4 Reinstated or
Appellate Court
5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (DonotciteJurisdictional statutes unlessdiversity):
42 U.S.C. 1983, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Seeking to declare unconstitutional Guam law which prohibits same-sex couples from marriage.
VII. REQUESTED IN
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint
DEMAND $
UNDER RULE 23. F RCv P.
JURY DEMAND:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
R. TODD THOMPSON
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT*
APPLYING IFP
JUDG!
MAG. JUDGE
Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 1-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 1
O Yes
pfNo',<r
Quatorzième amendement de la constitution des États-Unis
Mariage homosexuel
Documents similaires à 1:15-cv-00009 #1
Equality Case Files
NevadaGadfly
Icee Alcala Tarca
DarceyAddo
Tom Ciesielka
Helen M. Alvaré Amicus Brief
State Action
83theophilus
Plessy v Ferguson case digest
The Revolution Solution by Jason Gerhard
LoneStar1776
Hayes v. Port of Seattle, 251 U.S. 233 (1920)
Appellant's Notice and Motion to the Court 2D14-5388
Home Education in Colorado: Clarifying Parents' and Children's Rights
Estate Planning for the LGBT Community
Richard Schneider
Francisco Laureano-Agosto v. Ramon Garcia-Caraballo, Etc., 731 F.2d 101, 1st Cir. (1984)
Plus de Equality Case Files
15-5880 #28
SCAP-14-843 OPINION
Judge Orlando Garcia - Same-sex marriage stay lift
hearstaustin
15-1186 Motion to Vacate
14-60837 #00513095811
2:15-cv-00253 #8
Amicus Letters to TX Supreme Court
Populaire dans Violence
QUESTÕES DE VESTIBULARES
Erika CB
nasibdin
Corporal Punishment Schools
Alina Elena Cîrstea
Anthony Antone v. Charles Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation, and Jim Smith, Attorney General, State of Florida, 706 F.2d 1534, 11th Cir. (1983)
The Muslim World Volume 70 Issue 2 1980 [Doi 10.1111%2fj.1478-1913.1980.Tb03405.x] Mahmoud m. Ayoub -- Towards an Islamic Christology, II- The Death of Jesus, Reality or Delusion
NițceVali
Pregnancy Cengiz
kirana_patrolina
Unlawful Searches Draft 12.1 Pt by Prof Alexis Medina
Ace Christian Ocampo
Bob Taylor - Sightreading Jazz - Major
knoll - evil in forensic psychiatry.pdf
Manu Speech
johazeelignacio
Motion to Compel Depo of Matt Hume
Jason Cruz
MALIKO IP ASSignment.docx
Maliko Mudenda
NATO SFOR in Bosni and Herzegovina
Mirsad
Exam Prep Con La
Karina4412
Book I.docx
Athenagoras Evangelos
Peter J. Laskaris v. Richard Thornburgh, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Thomas Larson, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Dennis Hilton and Representative John Peterson, Richard Thornburgh, Thomas Larson and John Peterson, Michael Skapura v. Richard Thornburgh, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Thomas Larson, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Dept. Of Transportation, John Harhigh, Director of Bureau of Personnel James I. Scheiner, Deputy Secretary for Administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation All in Both Their Official and Individual Capacities, Richard Thornburgh, Thomas Larson and James I. Scheiner, 733 F.2d 260, 3rd Cir. (1984)
Milke Judicial Orders posted Aug 27
crimefile
Alois Rupp v. International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., and S.S. "Mormacstar", Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc., and American Scantic Line, 479 F.2d 674, 2d Cir. (1973)
East Kingston Police Chief Reid Simpson
east_kingston
Betlem Public and Private Enforcement of Consumer Law_EBLR 2007
Sotiris Christofi
Municipality of Kananga vs. Madrona.pdf
Ronnie Gravoso
4 - Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
manavmelwani
26 Childhood Arrival Under Daca
Felipe Toro
Maceda v. Macaraig
Adolf Hitler Speech
anindya_basu
SurahYasin
mostrom
1.8 - Lefort, Claude - Rennaisance of Democrarcy¿ (EN)
Juanma Vessant Roig
Warhorse Pride #11
warhorsepao
Law 424 Equity and Trust II
Victor Ike