11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
RESOLUTION NO. _____ _
A Resolution authorizing the City of Miami Beach to add The City of South
Miami's name to the list of parties filing an amicus curiae brief drafted by
the City of Miami Beach in support of marriage equality in Florida.
WHEREAS, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in the Miami marriage equality lawsuit,
Pareto v. Ruvin, has requested that the City of Miami Beach file an amicus curiae brief ("amicus
brief') in support of the Plaintiffs in that case as well as other Florida marriage equality cases.
WHEREAS, an amicus curiae brief is a "friend of the court" brief; and
WHEREAS, a letter dated November 17,2014, from Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr., Esquire,
First Assistant City Attorney for the City of Miami Beach, to Ms. Amy Mello of Freedom to
Marry invited other cities to sign onto the City of Miami Beach's amicus brief in support of
marriage equality in the courts and to clearly set forth that there is strong governmental interest
in seeing Florida's marriage ban invalidated, a copy of which is attached; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amicus brief was drafted by Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr., First
Assistant City Attorney for the City of Miami Beach, a copy of which is attached; and
WHEREAS, there is no financial impact or staff commitment associated with signing
on; and
WHEREAS, there is no need for the City of South Miami to independently draft or file
any brief or document in any case.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City of Miami Beach is hereby authorized to add the City of South
Miami's name to the list of parties filing an amicus curiae brief drafted by the City of Miami
Beach in support of marriage equality in Florida, a copy of which is attached.
Section 2. Severability. If any section clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by vote of the City Commission.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ______ , 2014.
Page 1 of2
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM,
LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND
EXECUTION THEREOF
CITY ATTORNEY
Page 2 of2
APPROVED:
MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Harris:
Commissioner Edmond:
Commissioner Liebman:
Commissioner Welsh:
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Tel: 305·673·7470, Fax: 305·673·7002
Ms. Amy Mello
Field Director
Freedom to Marry
155 West 19th Street
New York, NY 10011
Dear Amy:
November 17, 2014
The City of Miami Beach has worked in close strategic partnership with Broward
County, Orange County, the City of Orlando, the City of Tampa, the City of St.
Petersburg, the City of Gainesville, the City of Tallahassee, the City of Key West, the
City of Wilton Manors, and the Village of Biscayne Park to craft an amicus curiae
brief that represents the clear and unified voice of local governments in support of
marriage equality in Florida. The brief will be filed in all of the marriage cases making
their way through the Florida courts.
We now invite other Florida cities and counties to sign on to this amicus brief in
order to clearly set forth that we have a strong governmental interest in seeing
Florida's marriage ban invalidated. We are asking that each local government join us
in this single unified local government amicus brief.
The amicus brief, which is attached, explains how marriage discrimination is harmful
to our citizens' health and welfare, is detrimental to the efficiency and effectiveness
of our local governments as employers, and costs hard-earned tourism revenue. Our
brief is dynamic, and we will continue to work with each city and county that signs
on, in order to accurately reflect information specific to each city or county.
In order to sign on to the brief, a city or county councilor commission should simply
pass a motion or resolution authorizing the City of Miami Beach to add its name to
the list of parties filing the brief. There is no financial impact or staff commitment
associated with signing on. There is no need to independently draft or file any brief
or document in any case. I also attach our commission memorandum, as a
suggested template.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (305) 673-7470 ext. 6521 or bye-mail at
robertrosenwald@miamibeachfl,gov, or Nick Kallergis at (305) 673-7470 ext. 6321
or bye-mail at nickkallergis@miamibeachfl,gov, for additional information.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr.
First Assistant City Attorney
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safely to all who live. work. and ploy in our vibrant. tropical, historic communily.
Filing # 19281439 Electronically Filed 10110/201406:57:23 PM
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2D14-2384
L.T. Case No.: 14-DR-0666
MARIAMA MONIQUE CHANGAMIRE SHAW,
Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
KEIBA LYNN SHAW,
Appellee-Respondent.
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
CITY OF TAMPA, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, CITY OF ORLANDO,
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, CITY OF WILTON MANORS, VILLAGE OF
BISCAYNE PARK, AND BROW ARD COUNTY
IN SUPPORT OF RECOGNITION OF THE PARTIES' MARRIAGE
RAUL J. AGUILA, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 Convention Center Drive, 4th Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Telephone: (305) 673-7470
Facsimile: (305) 673-7002
By: s/Robert F. Rosenwald, Jf.
ROBERT F. ROSENWALD, JR.
robertrosenwald@miamibeachfl.gov
Florida Bar No. 0190039
NICHOLAS E. KALLERGIS
nickkallergis@miamibeachfl.gov
Florida Bar No. 0105278
Counsel for Amici Curiae
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................. viii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 1
I. MARRIAGE INEQUALITY HARMS OUR RESIDENTS, IMPEDES
OUR EFFECTIVENESS, AND ERODES OUR LEGITIMACY .................. 1
A. Marriage Inequality Brings Legal and Financial Harm to
Families ...................................................................................................... 2
B. Marriage Inequality Brings Psychological Harm ....................................... 7
II. MARRIAGE INEQUALITY HARMS US AS EMPLOYERS ...................... 9
A. We Work Hard to Provide a Nondiscriminatory Workplace ................... l 0
B. Marriage Inequality Presents Unique Challenges .................................... 11
1. The Marriage Ban Imposes Significant Administrative
Burdens ........................................................................................ 11
2. Our Best Efforts Still Impose Stigma and Confusion Among
Employees .................................................................................... 13
III. MARRIAGE INEQUALITY DENIES OUR TAXPAYERS HARD-
EARNED TOURISM REVENUE ................................................................ 13
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 17
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Brown v. Bd. of Educ.,
347 U.S. 483 (1954) ......................................................................................... 2
Goodridge v. Dep 't of Pub. Health,
798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) .......................................................................... 3
In re Marriage Cases,
183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) ................................................................................. 3
United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ..................................................................................... 3
Local Ordinances
Biscayne Park Village Charter § 7 .07 ..................................................................... xii
Biscayne Park Village Code § 2-47 .................................................................. xii, 11
Biscayne Park Village Code § 2-48 .................................................................. xii, 12
Broward County Code, ch. 16 Yz, art. VIII ................................................ xii, 11, 12
Broward County Code §§ 16Yz-21 to -23 ............................................................... xii
Broward County Code §§ 16Yz-33 to -33.1 ...................................................... xii, 11
Broward County Code §§ 16Yz-34 to -34.1 ............................................................ xii
Broward County Code §§ 16Yz-35 to -35.6 ............................................................ xii
Broward County Code § 16Yz-157 .................................................................... xii, 11
Miami Beach City Code § 2-373 ........................................................................ xi, 11
Miami Beach City Code § 62-33 .......................................................................... xi, 1
11
Miami Beach City Code § 62-34 to -37 .................................................................... xi
Miami Beach City Code § 62-86 to -91 .............................................................. xi, 11
Miami Beach City Code § 62-128 ...................................................................... xi, 12
Miami Beach City Code §§ 62-161 to -164 ..................................... , .................. xi, 11
Miami Beach City Code § 78-34 ............................................................................. 12
Orlando City Code §§ 57.01-14.5 .............................................................................. x
Orlando City Code § 57.08 ........................................................................................ x
Orlando City Code § 57.09 ........................................................................................ x
Orlando City Code § 57.l4 .................................................................................. x, 11
Orlando City Code § 57.48-78 ................................................................................... x
Orlando City Code § 57.80-86 ............................................................................. x, 11
St. Petersburg City Code §§ 15-31 to -37 ............................................................ x, 11
St. Petersburg City Code § 17 .5-23 ........................................................................... x
Tampa City Code § 12-5 .......................................................................................... .ix
Tampa City Code § 12-26 .................................................................................. .ix, 11
Tampa City Code § 12-64 ........................................................................................ .ix
.
Tampa City Code § 12-81 to -85 ............................................................................. .ix
Tampa City Code § 12-120 to -127 ................................................................... .ix, 11
Wilton Manors City Code § 2-268(v) ................................................................ xi, 11
Wilton Manors City Code §§ l3.5-41 to -46 ............................................... xi, 11, 12
III
Local Regulations
City of Orlando, Employment & Recruitment,
in Policies and Procedures § 808.2 ................................................................. x
City of Orlando, Harassment,
in Policies and Procedures § 808.26 ........................................................... x, 9
City of St. Petersburg, Equal Employment Opportunity and
Affirmative Action Plan, in City of St. Petersburg
Administrative Policy No. 010501 ................................................................... x
City of St. Petersburg, Internal Complaints Related to Discrimination,
Harassment, or Other Inappropriate Behavior, in Rules and
Regulations of the Personnel Management System,
§§ 10-1 to -4 ..................................................................................................... x
City of Tampa, Discriminatory Conduct,
in City of Tampa Personnel Manual § Bl.2 .................................................. .ix
City of Tampa, Equal Opportunity,
in City of Tampa Personnel Manual § Bl.IA ............................................... .ix
City of Tampa, Group Health Insurance,
in City of Tampa Personnel Manual § B22.l .......................................... .ix, 12
City of Wilton Manors, The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act-
FMLA Policy, in Personnel and Safety Rules and Regulations,
Civil Service Rules § 10-9 .............................................................................. xi
Local Resolutions
City of St. Petersburg, Proclamation of Mayor Rick Kriseman
(June 12, 2014) ................................................................................... x, 11, 12
Village of Biscayne Park Resolution No. 2014-45 ................................................. xii
IV
Other Authorities
American Psychiatric Association, Position Statement, Support of
Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage (2005) ................................. 7
M. V. Lee Badgett, Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex
Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?, 1 Sexuality Res.
& Soc. Pol'y 1 (2004) ...................................................................................... 4
M.V. Lee Badgett, Laura E. Durso, Angeliki Kastanis, & Christy
Mallory, The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Workplace
Policies 1, Williams Inst. (2013) ................................................................... 10
William C. Buffie, Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage,
101 Am. J. Pub. Health 986 (2011) ................................................................. 3
Erik H. Erikson, Identity and the Life Cycle (1959) .................................................. 7
E.G. Fitzgerald, Christy Mallory & M.V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the
Economic Boost of Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Florida,
Williams Inst. (2014) .................................................................................... 15
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Same-Sex Marriage and
Health (2008) ............................................................................... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Gilbert Herdt & Robert Kertzner, I do, but I can't: The impact of
marriage denial on the mental health and sexual citizenship of
lesbians and gay men in the United States, 3 Sexuality Res. &
Soc. Pol'y J. NSRC 33 (2006) ........................................................ .4, 5, 7, 8, 9
Eric Holder, u.S. Attorney General, Attorney General Holder's
Remarks at the Morgan State University Commencement
Ceremony (May 19, 2014) ............................................................................... 2
v
Email from Amy Iennaco, Chief Asst. City Att'y, Orlando, Fla., to
Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr., Senior Asst. City Att'y, Miami
Beach, Fla. (June 20, 2014,13:03:00 EST) (on file with
recipient) .................................................................................................. xi, 12
Richard Kim & Lisa Duggin, Beyond Gay Marriage, The Nation,
June 29, 2005, http://www.thenation.com!articlelbeyond-gay-
marriage ........................................................................................................... 8
Janice Langbehn, Address at Family Equality Council Media Awards
(October 13.2007), available at
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com!search ? q=cache:-
H3 ot9UnNykJ :thelpkids. wordpress.com!keynote-
speeches/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct= clnk&gl=us .................................................... 5
Email from Christ yMallory, Senior Counsel, Williams Institute, to
Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr., Senior Asst. City Att'y, Miami
Beach, Fla. (June 13,2014,3:36:00 EST) (on file with
recipient) ........................................................................................................ 1 0
Margaret Mead, What is Happening to the American Family?, 1
Pastoral Psychology 40 (1950) ........................................................................ 7
Katherine A. o 'Hanlan, Health Policy Considerations for Our Sexual
Minority Patients, 107 Obstetrics & Gynecology 709 (2006) ........................ 6
c.J. Patterson & L.V. Friel, Sexual Orientation and Fertility, in
Infertility in the modern world: Biosocial perspectives (G.
Bentley and N. Mascie-Taylor, eds., 2000) ..................................................... 5
James Pawelski, et aI., Special Article, The Effects of Marriage, Civil
Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and
Well-Being of Children, 118 Pediatrics 349 (2006), available at
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/contentIl18/1/349 .full.pdf
+html ............................................................................................................ 5, 6
Catherine E. Ross, et aI., The Impact of the Family on Health: The
Decade in Review, 52 J. Marriage & Fam. 1059 (1990) ................................. 8
VI
Virgina Rutter & Pepper Schwartz, The Gender of Sexuality:
Exploring Sexual Possibilities (2006) ............................................................ .4
Hannah Sampson, Miami-Beach, Fort Lauderdale Offer Two New
Options for Gay Tourists, Miami Herald, Jan. 10,2011,
http://www.miamiherald.comJ2011101110/2009627/miami-
beach-fort-Iauderdale-feature.html ................................................................ 14
Tara Siegel Bernard, A Progress Report on Gay Employee Health
Benefits, N.Y. Times, Dec. 5,2012,
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.comJ20 10112114/a-progress-report-
on-gay-employee-health-benefitsl ................................................................. 13
Peggy Thoits, Stress, Coping, and Social Support Processes: Where
Are We? What Next?, J. Health & Soc. Behav. (Special Issue)
53 (1995) .......................................................................................................... 8
Tourism, Culture, and Economic Development Department, City of
Miami Beach, Miami Beach Economic Indicators (2012),
available at http://miamibeachfl.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?
LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=65252 ................................................................ 14
U.S. Office ofPers. Mgmt., Grossing Up Awards: Why and Why Not,
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversightlperformance-
management/performance-management-
cyde/rewarding/grossing-up-awards/ ............................................................ 12
Visit Florida, About VISIT FLORIDA, http://www.visitflorida.comJen-
us/about-visit-florida.html (last visited Oct. 9,2014) .................................. 14
Linda Waite & Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why
Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off
Financially (2000) ....................................................................................... 7, 8
Cathleen Zick & Ken Smith, Marital Transitions, Poverty, and
Gender Differences in Mortality, 53 J. Marriage & Fam. 327
(1991) ............................................................................................................... 8
Vll
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici are a broad cross-section of Florida county and city governments that
have individually resolved that marriage discrimination against lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and trans gender ("LGBT") people is inimical to our citizens' health and
welfare, is detrimental to our efficiency and effectiveness as employers, and denies
our taxpayers hard-earned tourism revenue at a time when we can least afford it.
We write to aid the Court by setting forth the very real harm wrought by marriage
inequality upon our citizens and upon our very legitimacy as governing bodies. We
have thoughtfully and deliberately arrived at this position. We have prohibited
discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations against
lesbians and gay men within our jurisdictions. We have created boards or
committees to hear complaints of unlawful discrimination, including
discrimination against LGBT people, so that the promise of nondiscrimination is
made real for our residents and visitors. We have established domestic partnership
registries in an attempt to provide whatever substitute we can to our same-sex
couples who are denied the stability and recognition that come automatically with
civil marriage in Florida. We provide benefits to the domestic partners of our
employees so that these families can rely upon health insurance and leave policies
that otherwise would be denied them. Some of us require that our contractors
provide equal benefits to domestic partner couples and at least one of us pays the
Vlll
extra federal income tax levied upon unmarried same-sex couples that married
straight couples do not have to pay when purchasing group health insurance. We
take these steps because it is the right thing to do. But we also recognize that the
continuing viability of our democracy and our society depends upon a well-
justified belief by our people that we govern based upon the transparent and fair
application of laws that apply to all equally.
Amici are comprised of the following Florida governmental entities:
The City of Tampa ("Tampa"), through its Mayor Bob Buckhorn and with the
concurrence of the Tampa City Council, has authorized the Tampa City Attorney
to join in the submission of this brief and describe the efforts by Tampa to assure
equality among its citizens. Tampa's Human Rights Ordinance prohibits
discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing. 1 Tampa
maintains a domestic partnership registry and provides health benefits to the
domestic partners of its employees.2 Tampa created a Human Rights Board to hear
and initiate complaints of discrimination under Tampa's Human Rights Ordinance,
and granted the board the power to review determinations of reasonable cause by
the city's administration.3 Tampa also boasts comprehensive protections for LGBT
individuals in its personnel rules: Tampa's Equal Opportunity Policy requires
equal treatment of all persons and equal opportunity in employment, and prohibits
discrimination, inappropriate behavior, or harassment based on sexual orientation. 4
Lastly, Tampa requires its employees to provide services to the public without
regard to the person's sexual orientation.s
1 Tampa City Code § 12-26 (employment); § 12-64 (public accommodations); and
12-81 to -85 (housing).
2 Tampa City Code §§ 12-120 to -127 (domestic partnership registry); City of
Tampa, Group Health Insurance, in City of Tampa Personnel Manual § B22.1
(equal benefits for domestic partners of city employees).
3 Tampa City Code § 12-5.
4 City of Tampa, Equal Opportunity, in City of Tampa Personnel Manual § B1.1A;
Discriminatory Conduct, in City of Tampa Personnel Manual § B 1.2.
SId.
IX
The City of St. Petersburg ("St. Petersburg") enacted a Domestic Partnership
Registry Ordinance in 2012.6 In its Equal Employment Opportunity & Affirmative
Action Plan, St. Petersburg prohibits discrimination in "recruitment, examination,
training, promotion, retention, or any other personnel action because of ... sexual
orientation."7 St. Petersburg provides a comprehensive procedure for filing
complaints of discrimination with the city's Human Resources Department.8 St.
Petersburg prohibits discrimination in the city's housing assistance program.9 St.
Petersburg has a Mayoral LGBT Liaison and Police LGBT Liaison.lo Lastly, St.
Petersburg encourages vendors and contractors to adopt anti-discrimination
policies and to provide workplaces free of sexual orientation discrimination in
terms and conditions of employment, including benefits. I I St. Petersburg's Mayor
and City Council voted on September 4, 2014, to submit this amicus curiae brief.
The City of Orlando' ("Orlando") broadly prohibits discrimination in
employment, housing, public accommodations, and lending, in its City Code.12
Orlando's Chapter 57 Review Board is charged, among other things, with
protecting the civil rights of its LGBT citizens and hearing complaints of
discrimination.13 Orlando prohibits discrimination against city employees, and
includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in its anti-
harassment policy.14 Orlando also maintains a domestic partner registry and
protects the rights of domestic partners with regard to healthcare visitation and
decisions, funeral and burial decisions, correctional facility visitation, mandatory
notification of family members, preneed guardian designation, and education. IS
Orlando has offered health benefits to its employees' same-sex domestic partners
6 St. Petersburg City Code §§ 15-31 to -37.
7 City of St. Petersburg, Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action
Plan, in City of St. Petersburg Administrative Policy No. 010501.
8 City of St. Petersburg, Internal Complaints Related to Discrimination,
Harassment, or Other Inappropriate Behavior, in Rules and Regulations of the
Personnel Management System §§ 10-1 to -4.
9 St. Petersburg City Code § 17.5-23.
10 City of St. Petersburg, Proclamation of Mayor Rick Kriseman (June 12,2014).
II Id.
12 Orlando City Code § 57.14 (employment); §§ 57.48-78 (housing); § 57.08
(public accommodations); § 57.09 (lending).
13 Orlando City Code §§ 57.01-14.5.
14 City of Orlando, Employment & Recruitment, in Policies and Procedures §
808.2; Harassment, in Policies and Procedures § 808.26.
IS Orlando City Code § 57.80-86.
x
since 2009.16 Orlando's Mayor and Council voted on June 23, 2014, to submit this
amicus curiae brief.
The City of Miami Beach ("Miami Beach") is a hub of tourism and diversity for
people from the United States and around the world. Miami Beach prohibits
discrimination against LGBT people and has established a Human Rights
Committee to hear charges of discrimination.17 Miami Beach has established a
domestic partner registry and provides employment benefits to domestic partners
of employees and their children, mandates that Miami Beach's contractors provide
these benefits to their employees, and Miami Beach reimburses ("grossing up") our
employees who pay extra income federal income tax for domestic partner health
insurance benefits. 18 Miami Beach's Mayor and Commission voted unanimously
on June 11, 2014, to submit this amicus curiae brief.
The City of Wilton Manors ("Wilton Manors") maintains a domestic partnership
registry and provides equal benefits to the domestic partners of its city
employees.19 Likewise, covered city contractors in Wilton Manors must provide
equal benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.2o City vendors and
contractors are prohibited from discriminating against any person based on sexual
orientation or marital status. Wilton Manors allows city employees to take military
caregiver leave if a domestic partner of an employee requires care due to an injury
or illness suffered while on active military duty.21 Health insurance continuation
coverage is guaranteed to the children and domestic partners of city employees if
16 Email from Amy Iennaco, Chief Asst. City Att'y, Orlando, Fla., to Robert F.
Rosenwald, Jr., Senior Asst. City Att'y, Miami Beach, Fla. (June 20, 2014,
l3 :03 :00 EST) (on file with recipient).
17 See Miami Beach City Code § 62-33 (declaring the City's policy against
discrimination); §§ 62-34 to -37 (creating the Miami Beach Human Rights
Committee); §§ 62-86 to -91 (prohibiting discrimination in employment, public
accommodations, housing, and public services, as well as prohibiting retaliatory
discrimination, coercion of discriminatory practices, and interference, obstruction,
or prevention of compliance with the Miami Beach Human Rights Ordinance).
18 Miami Beach City Code §§ 62-161 to -164 (domestic partnership registry); § 62-
128(c) (equal benefits for domestic partners); § 2-373 (equal benefits for domestic
partners of city contractors); § 62-128(d) (grossing up ordinance).
19 Wilton Manors City Code §§ l3.5-41 to -46.
20 Wilton Manors City Code § 2-268(v).
21 City of Wilton Manors, The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act -FMLA
Policy, in Personnel and Safety Rules and Regulations, Civil Service Rules § 10-9.
Xl
they lose coverage because of the death of the employee, the employee's
termination, divorce or legal separation of the employee, the employee's
entitlement to Medicare benefits, or a dependent's loss of designation as a
"dependent child" under the city's health plan.22 The Mayor and City Commission
of Wilton Manors voted on August 12, 2014, to submit this amicus curiae brief.
The Village of Biscayne Park ("Biscayne Park") prohibits discrimination based
on sexual orientation, under its Village Charter. 23 Biscayne Park maintains a
domestic partnership registry,24 and provides equal benefits to the domestic
partners of its village employees.25 The Mayor and Village Council voted
unanimously on July 1, 2014, to "support equal access to legal marriage for same-
sex couples" and to oppose "laws and constitutional amendments that deny equal
access to legal marriage for same-sex couples."26
Broward County has been at the forefront of promoting equality for LGBT
individuals and has a long history of support for the rights of same-sex couples. As
early as 1999, Broward provided domestic partner employment benefits to its
employees 27 and required that County contractors provide benefits to domestic
partners,28 both on the same basis as they provide benefits to employees' spouses.
More broadly, Broward prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation in
employment, public accommodations, and real estate transactions, including
lending,29 and has created a Human Rights Board to enforce these provisions.30
The Broward County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution in
support of marriage equality on August 12,2014.
221d.
23 Biscayne Park Village Charter § 7.07.
24 Biscayne Park Village Code § 2-47.
25 Biscayne Park Village Code § 2-48.
26 Village of Biscayne Park Resolution No. 2014-45.
27 See Broward County Code, ch. 16 1h, art. VIII.
28 Broward County Code § 1611z-157.
29 See Broward County Code §§ 1611z-33 to -33.1 (employment); §§ 1611z-34 to
-34.1 (public accommodations); §§ 16Yz-35 to -35.6 (real estate).
30 Broward County Code §§ 1611z-21 to -23.
Xll
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Florida's prohibition on marriage for gay and lesbian couples impedes our
ability to fulfill our core mission of providing for the health and welfare of our
residents, thereby eroding the very legitimacy of our governments; interferes with
the administration of our business as employers; and denies our taxpayers tourism
revenue.
ARGUMENT
I. Marriage Inequality Harms Our Residents, Impedes Our Effectiveness,
and Erodes Our Legitimacy.
We are resolved that there is no greater threat to our sacred mission to
protect the health and welfare of our citizens than the existence of invidious
discrimination. As the Miami Beach Code makes clear,
In the city, with its cosmopolitan population consisting of people of
every race, color, national origin, religion, sex, intersexuality, gender
identity, sexual orientation, marital and familial status, and age, some
of them who are disabled as defined under section 62-31 hereof, there
is no greater danger to the health, morals, safety and welfare of the
city and its inhabitants than the existence of prejudice against one
another and antagonistic to each other because of differences of race,
color, national origin, religion, sex, intersexuality, gender identity,
sexual orientation, marital and familial status, age, or disability. The
city finds and declares that prejudice, intolerance, bigotry and
discrimination and disorder occasioned thereby threaten the rights and
proper privileges of its inhabitants and menace the very institutions,
foundations and bedrock of a free, democratic society.3!
The societal harm that comes from discrimination reaches its apex when
3! Miami Beach City Code § 62-33.
1
institutionalized as laws that serve no purpose other than to harm one segment of
the population; discrimination is never more harmful than when the government
itself discriminates. Attorney General Eric Holder recounted his own experience
with state-sponsored racial discrimination as he announced that the federal
government would no longer treat gay couples as less than equal to straight
couples: "[A]lthough the vestiges of state-sanctioned discrimination affected many
aspects of our lives -and continue to reverberate across the country even today -
thanks to Brown and those who made it possible, your generation will never know
a world in which 'separate but equal' was the law of the land."32
Florida's state-sanctioned discrimination compromises the health and
welfare of our society and of our gay and lesbian citizens.
A. Marriage Inequality Brings Legal and Financial Harm to
Families.
In the country's seminal decision on same-sex marrIage, Massachusetts'
highest court recognized that the denial of marriage rights to gays and lesbians is
the purest form of institutionalized discrimination:
The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real
segment of the community for no rational reason .... The absence of
any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute
disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil
marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or
32 Eric Holder, u.s. Attorney General, Attorney General Holder's Remarks at the
Morgan State University Commencement Ceremony (May 19,2014) (citing Brown
v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954)).
2
general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in
persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to
be) homosexual. 33
The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this rationale. In
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013), the Court stated, "The
avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question [the Defense of
Marriage Act] are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma
upon all who enter into same-sex marriages .... "
Florida's ban on same-sex marriage, the plainest form of discrimination,34
has a tremendous negative impact on the health and well-being of gay and lesbian
couples and their children.3 5 Florida denies these families the "aggregate of moral
and social support [that] enables married people to more effectively negotiate the
33 Goodridge v. Dep 't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 968 (Mass. 2003).
34 In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 402 (Cal. 2008) ("Retaining the designation
of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and
distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating
a more general premise -now emphatically rejected by this state -that gay
individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens' who
may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than,
heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.").
35 Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Same-Sex Marriage and Health 3 (2008).
A survey of 34,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals conducted in 2001 and
2002, and again in 2004 and 2005 after 14 states adopted constitutional bans on
same-sex marriage, found "empirical evidence of the negative health effects of
discriminatory policies relative to marriage equality." In the second study,
"participants reported significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders, with
increases of 36% for any mood disorder, 248% for generalized anxiety disorder,
42% for alcohol use disorder, and 36% for psychiatric comorbidity." William C.
Buffie, Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage, 101 Am. 1. Pub. Health
986, 987 (2011).
3
ordinary and extraordinary challenges that occur In social life, through the
provision of a set of recurring advantages."36
The benefits of civil marriage include "spousal benefits, such as social
security and public pensions; income tax benefits; inheritance, insurance, and
survivorship rights including estate tax benefits, health insurance in spouses' group
plans; the right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse; and power to make medical
decisions on behalf of a spouse."37 "More than 60 percent of insured Americans
received health care through their own employer or that of their spouse or other
family member."38 Currently, same-sex couples are barred from "the full range of
legal, economic, social, and mental health benefits provided by marriage. Legal
recognition short of marriage is not transportable across state lines and subjects
lesbians and gay men to the vicissitudes oflocallaw and law enforcement."39
A stark illustration of this devastating harm can be found right here at home:
In February 2007, Janice Langbehn, her long term partner Lisa Pond, and their
three adopted children were in Miami to take a cruise. Pond suffered a brain
36 Gilbert Herdt & Robert Kertzner, 1 do, but 1 can't: The impact of marriage
denial on the mental health and sexual citizenship of lesbians and gay men in the
United States, 3 Sexuality Res. & Soc. Pol'y J. NSRC 33, 38 (2006).
37 ld. (citing Virginia Rutter & Pepper Schwartz, The Gender of Sexuality:
Exploring Sexual Possibilities (2006)).
38 Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, supra note 35, at 6 (citing Herdt &
Kertzner, supra note 36; M.V. Lee Badgett, Will Providing Marriage Rights to
Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?, 1 Sexuality Res. & Soc.
Pol'y 1,8 (2004)).
391d.
4
aneurysm and was admitted to Jackson Memorial Hospital. The hospital, after
telling Langbehn that she was "in an anti-gay city and state," refused to allow
Langbehn and the couples' children to be with Pond, despite having received a
durable power of attorney and advance directive. Pond died alone without her
family present. 40
While the dignity of marriage would empower couples like Janice Langbehn
and Lisa Pond to make end-of-life decisions, the protective power of marriage
might have served their children even more. Marriage equality would concretely
promote the health and well-being of the many Florida children currently raised by
gay and lesbian couples.41 Marriage inequality undermines the stability of families
raised by gay or lesbian couples, and "perpetua[ tes] false claims about [their]
parental fitness."42 On the other hand, the legal recognition of a same-sex
relationship "can increase the ability of adult couples to provide and care for one
another and fosters a nurturing and secure environment for their children."43
40 Id. at 10 (citing Janice Langbehn, Address at Family Equality Council Media
Awards (October 13. 2007), available at
http://webcache.googleusercontent.comlsearch ? q=cache:-
H3 ot9UnNykJ :thelpkids. wordpress. cornlkeynote-speeches/+&cd= 3 &hl=en&ct=
clnk&gl=us ).
41 Id. at 7 (citing C.J. Patterson & L.V. Friel, Sexual Orientation and Fertility, in
Infertility in the modern world: Biosocial perspectives 238 (G. Bentley and N.
Mascie-Taylor, eds., 2000)).
42Id. (citing Herdt & Kertzner, supra note 36).
43Id. (citing James Pawelski, et aI., Special Article, The Effects of Marriage, Civil
Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children,
5
Children of Florida same-sex couples are currently denied rights and
privileges enjoyed by children of legally married couples, like "survivorship rights
and protections, recognition of parental rights and responsibilities, tax and other
financial advantages, and legal protections to partners and children during the
dissolution of relationships. "44 These rights are basic benefits of civil marriage, and
should be extended to same-sex couples who wish to marry. Instead, children of
same-sex parents suffer economic, legal, and familial insecurity.45 Without the
legal protections of civil marriage, "same gender couples' death, disability, and
divorce disputes are relegated to civil courts, which apply contract or business law,
but not family law, such that children's concerns are ignored."46
Society's ability to care for another group of its most vulnerable citizens is
compromised by Florida's same-sex marriage ban: the elderly. The American
Psychiatric Association recognizes the effect of marriage discrimination on aging:
As the population ages, the denial of legal recognition of civil
marriage has consequences for increasing numbers of older adults in
same-sex relationships who face age-related health and financial
concerns. Excluding these adults from civil marriage protections of
survivorship and inheritance rights, financial benefits, and legal
recognition as a couple in healthcare settings increases the
118 Pediatrics 349 (2006), available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/
contentIl18/1/349.full.pdf+html).
441d.
451d.
461d. (citing Katherine A. O'Hanlan, Health Policy Considerations for Our Sexual
Minority Patients, 107 Obstetrics & Gynecology 709 (2006)).
6
psychological burden associated with aging.47
Marriage provides a socially and legally recognized "context for individuals
to realize their capacities for love, care, and self-transcendence."48 Marriage also
"provides social legitimacy to the intimate bonds of adults and is required for the
recognition of full adulthood across many cultures."49 The denial of marriage
equality reverberates from cradle to grave.
B. Marriage Inequality Brings Psychological Harm.
In addition to legal and financial disadvantages, marriage discrimination
wreaks psychological harm on family members of gay and lesbian couples. Gay
and lesbian couples "face unusual and specific stressors due to the absence of
social and legal rights and duties that define same-sex couplehood. "50 The
American Psychiatric Association has recognized that "same-sex couples ...
experience several kinds of state-sanctioned discrimination that can adversely
affect the stability of their relationships and their mental health."51
47 Id. at 9 (citing Position Statement, American Psychiatric Association, Support of
Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage (2005)).
48 Id. at 5 (citing Herdt & Kertzner, supra note 36; Erik H. Erikson, Identity and
the Life Cycle (1959)).
49 Id. (citing Linda Waite & Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why
Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (2000);
Margaret Mead, What is Happening to the American Family?, 1 Pastoral
Psychology 40 (1950)).
50 Herdt & Kertzner, supra note 36, at 40.
51 Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, supra note 35, at 3 (citing American
Psychiatric Association, supra note 47).
7
Hundreds of studies of straight couples have established that "married
individuals have better mental health, more emotional support, less psychological
distress, and lower rates of psychiatric disorders than unmarried individuals."52
Marriage equality "may confer additional benefits because of the protective effects
of relationships in countering discrimination and sexual prejudice."53
Married individuals report more emotional support and are more likely to
have a close confidant than the unmarried. 54 Emotional support is directly
associated with health and well-being and provides protection against the negative
health consequences of stress.55
Many Americans relate their well-being to marriage,56 which is widely
perceived to bestow a variety of resources and benefits. 57 Married individuals
report less economic strain and higher incomes than the unmarried. 58 For
Americans who enjoy legal access to it, "marriage is uniquely associated with
52 Herdt & Kertzner, supra note 36, at 35.
53 Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, supra note 35, at 6.
54 Id.
55 Id. (citing Herdt & Ke'rtzner, supra note 36; Peggy Thoits, Stress, Coping, and
Social Support Processes: Where Are We? What Next?, J. Health & Soc. Behav.
(Special Issue) 53 (1995)).
56 Id. (citing Richard Kim & Lisa Duggin, Beyond Gay Marriage, The Nation, June
29, 2005, http://www.thenation.comlarticle/beyond-gay-marriage).
57 Id. (citing Waite & Gallagher, supra note 49).
58 Id. (citing Herdt & Kertzner, supra note 36; Catherine E. Ross, et aI., The Impact
of the Family on Health: The Decade in Review, 52 J. Marriage & Fam. 1059
(1990); Waite & Gallagher, supra note 49; Cathleen Zick & Ken Smith, Marital
Transitions, Poverty, and Gender Differences in Mortality, 53 J. MarTiage & Fam.
327 (1991)).
8
tangible and intangible benefits that are linked to and support psychological
health."59 In sum, the denial of marriage to lesbians and gay men is harmful to the
health and welfare of our residents and is harmful to society at large.
II. Marriage Inequality Harms Us As Employers.
Our business is to provide world-class service to our residents and visitors.
We employ large and diverse workforces, which perform functions ranging from
that of City Manager to summer recreation counselors -everything needed to run
multi-faceted organizations. It is only by our ability to attract and retain top-tier
talent that we can live up to our promise. Orlando said it this way:
The City of Orlando community has a population which is richly
diverse. The effective provision of governmental services within such
a diverse community requires the services of an equally diverse
employee population. The City of Orlando is, therefore, committed to
providing an employee workforce which, in all positions and at all
levels, fairly reflects the community it serves. The City encourages all
segments of its population to become involved with, and seek
employment in, City government. To achieve this goal, it is the policy
of the City of Orlando, binding on all officials and employees, to offer
equal employment opportunity to all persons regardless of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or disability. The
City will further take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that all
employment practices, including, but not limited to, compensation,
benefits, layoffs, promotions, training, terminations, hiring, and
recruitment, are administered in a manner that provides full and fair
opportunity to all persons.60
The Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles School
59 Herdt & Kertzner, supra note 36 at 36.
60 City of Orlando, Harassment, in Policies and Procedures § 808.26.
9
of Law recently reviewed 36 research studies and found that working in an LGBT-
supportive workplace climate resulted in "greater job commitment, improved
workplace relationships, increased job satisfaction, improved health outcomes, and
increased productivity" among LGBT employees.61
A. We Work Hard to Provide a Nondiscriminatory Workplace.
In Florida, all 12 public universities in the state prohibit discrimination
based on sexual orientation and nine prohibit discrimination based on gender
identity. There are at least 28 localities that prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation against their own government employees. Twenty localities also
prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. 62
A 2011 study found that 68 local governments in the United States require
that their contractors have LGBT -supportive affirmative action policies, or policies
granting same-sex domestic partners equal benefits.63 We prohibit discrimination
based upon sexual orientation and gender identity by covered employers doing
61 M.V. Lee Badgett, Laura E. Durso, Angeliki Kastanis, & Christy Mallory, The
Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Workplace Policies 1, Williams Institute
(2013) (hereinafter "Williams Institute"), available at
http://williamsinstitute.law . ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Business-Impact -LG BT -
Policies-Full-Report-May-20 13.pdf.
62 Email from Christy Mallory, Senior Counsel, Williams Institute, to Robert F.
Rosenwald, Jr., Senior Asst. City Att'y, Miami Beach, Fla. (June 13, 2014, 12:36
EST) (on file with recipient).
63 Williams Institute, supra note 61, at 21.
10
business in our jurisdictions.64 We also encourage or reqUIre our covered
contractors to provide domestic partner benefits on equal footing with those
offered to married couples.65
B. Marriage Inequality Presents Unique Challenges.
Marriage discrimination by the state presents its own unique challenges for
us to address. Although we attempt to lessen burdens on our employees, these
efforts impose significant administrative burdens. While we provide near-
equivalents to some of the benefits afforded to legally married couples, we are
unable to erase the stain of inequality.
1. The Marriage Ban Imposes Significant
Administrative Burdens.
To alleviate the disparities in available benefits between gay and straight
employee families, we provide comprehensive workarounds in an attempt to
approximate marriage equality for our employees. First, we have all enacted a
domestic partner registry that the public can use to register families for local
recognition.66 Second, we all provide benefits to registered domestic partners of
64 Tampa City Code § 12-26; Orlando City Code § 57.14; Miami Beach City Code
§ 62-86; Broward County Code §§ 16Y2-33 to -33.1.
65 City of St. Petersburg, Proclamation of Mayor Rick Kriseman (June 12, 2014);
Miami Beach City Code § 2-373(b); Wilton Manors City Code § 2-268(v);
Broward County Code § 16Yz-157.
66 Tampa City Code §§ 12-120 to -127; St. Petersburg City Code §§ 15-31 to -37;
Orlando City Code §§ 57.80-86; Miami Beach City Code §§ 62-161 to -164;
11
city employees.67 Finally, Miami Beach reimburses employees for the additional
federal income tax liability that domestic partners -but not legally married
couples -incur when receiving benefits ("grossing Up").68
Grossing up is a costly and complex process. To illustrate, a married
employee who, through an employer, obtains health insurance for a spouse does
not pay federal income tax on the value of the insurance obtained, but only if the
employee's spouse is legally recognized. Many employers attempt to address
taxability differences by reimbursing the employee to offset the tax impact of
imputed healthcare benefits. Grossing up offsets the inequity created by Florida's
discriminatory marriage law, but it imposes a pecuniary cost beyond the direct cost
of paying for employee benefits.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in a study of grossing up, noted
that this approach "raises costs considerably .... Under a grossing up policy, a
$1,000 net cash award would actually cost the agency $1,713.80."69 The New York
Wilton Manors City Code §§ 13.5-41 to -46; Biscayne Park Village Code § 2-47;
Broward County Code, ch. 16Yz, art. VIII.
67 City of Tampa, Group Health Insurance, in City of Tampa Personnel Manual §
B22.l; City of St. Petersburg, Proclamation of Mayor Rick Kriseman (June 12,
2014); Email from Amy Iennaco, supra note 16; Miami Beach City Code § 78-34;
Wilton Manors City Code § 13.5-45; Biscayne Park Village Code § 2-48; Broward
County Code, ch. 16Yz, art. VIII.
68 Miami Beach City Code § 62-128(d).
69 U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Grossing Up Awards: Why and Why Not,
http://www . opm. gov /policy-data -oversight/performance-management/performance
-management-cycle/rewarding/grossing-up-awards/ (using the following
12
Times estimates that grossing up for an employee who incurred between $1,200
and $1,500 in extra taxes costs the employer between $2,000 and $2,500.70
Grossing up is also quite complicated. Tax rates, timing, and the taxation of
the gross up amount itself all come into play. We must retain experts who craft the
policies and structure systems that can record gross-up amounts, as well as educate
human resources, benefits, and payroll administrators.
2. Our Best Efforts Still Impose Stigma and Confusion
Among Employees.
Our workarounds -as well-intentioned and beneficial as they are -still
perpetuate a stigma by according different treatment to those employees who were
married out-of-state to a same-sex spouse or are barred from marriage by Florida
law, as opposed to those who are legally married to a different-sex spouse. Rightly
or wrongly, our employees see us as the enforcement mechanism for a
discriminatory regime. Employee morale and productivity suffer as a result.
III. Marriage Inequality Denies Our Taxpayers Hard-Earned Tourism
Revenue.
Our local economies, like those of most of Florida, are heavily dependent
upon domestic and international tourism. As the state's number one industry,
withholding rates: federal income tax, 28 percent; Medicare tax, 1.45 percent;
Social Security tax, 6.2 percent; state income tax, 6 percent).
70 Tara Siegel Bernard, A Progress Report on Gay Employee Health Benefits, N.Y.
Times, Dec. 5, 2012, http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.coml2010112114/a-progress-
report-on-gay-employee-health-benef'its/.
13
tourism was responsible for welcoming 94.3 million visitors in 2013 who spent
$76.1 billion, generating 23 percent of the state's sales tax revenue and employing
nearly 1.1 million Floridians. 71 Miami Beach's tropical weather, thriving arts
scene, multicultural populace, and booming nightlife drew a diverse international
crowd of 5,293,722 tourists to the city in the last counted year. Tourism brings in
more than $8 billion dollars annually and makes up a large percentage of Miami
Beach's annual budget.72 The South Florida region is also a favorite tourist
destination for lesbians and gay men. Broward and Miami-Dade counties draw an
estimated 2.15 million LGBT visitors a year who spend nearly $3 billion.73
The Williams Institute has determined that Florida would see an economic
boost as same-sex couples plan their weddings, and as their out-of-state guests
purchase goods and services in the state, in the first three years following the
state's recognition of same-sex marriage. The authors of this study based their
findings on information regarding marriage spending by same-sex couples in other
states, along with wedding expenditure and tourism data from the State of Florida,
71 Visit Florida, About VISIT FLORIDA, http://www.visitflorida.comJen-us/about-
visit-florida.html (last visited Oct. 9, 2014).
72 Tourism, Culture, and Economic Development Department, City of Miami
Beach, Miami Beach Economic Indicators (2012), available at
http://miamibeachfl. gov IW orkArea/linkit.aspx ?LinkIdentifier=id&I temID=65 25 2.
73 Hannah Sampson, Miami-Beach, Fort Lauderdale Offer Two New Options for
Gay Tourists, Miami Herald, Jan. 10, 2011,
http://www.miamiherald.comJ20 11 10 1/1012009627 Imiami-beach-fort-Iauderdale-
feature.html.
14
to estimate the economIC stimulus from the state's recognition of marrIage
equality. The study indicates that the total spending on wedding arrangements and
tourism by same-sex couples and their guests would be approximately $182.2
million over three years, with a positive impact of $116.6 million in the first year
alone. The total added economic activity over three years would generate about
$12.1 million in tax revenue for state and local governments. Finally, marriage
spending would directly account for the creation of up to 2,600 jobs in Florida.74
We spend significant public funds to attract tourists. Institutional
discrimination that makes Florida a less attractive place to visit is directly contrary
to the interests of our taxpayers and to society at large.
CONCLUSION
Fair and transparent government is the cornerstone of our society. Florida's
same-sex marriage ban compromises our ability to fulfill thatpromise. In addition
to violating notions of constitutional government and basic fairness, the state's
marriage ban keeps us from doing our job. The Court should recognize the
marriage of Mariama. Monique Changamire Shaw and Keiba Lynn Shaw, and the
decision of the Circuit Court should be reversed. 75
74 E.G. Fitzgerald, Christy Mallory & M.V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic
Boost of Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Florida, Williams Inst. (2014).
75 Broward joins in the brief filed by Amici Curiae solely for the purpose of asking
the Court to provide the relief requested and requesting it to take judicial notice of
15
Respectfully Submitted,
RAUL J. AGUILA, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 Convention Center Drive, 4th Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Telephone: (305) 673-7470
Facsimile: (305) 673-7002
By: s/Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr.
ROBERT F. ROSENWALD, JR.
First Assistant City Attorney
robertrosenwald@miamibeachfl.gov
Florida Bar No. 0190039
NICHOLAS E. KALLERGIS
Assistant City Attorney
nickkallergis@miamibeachfl.gov
Florida BarNo. 0105278
Counsel for Amici Curiae
the County's ordinance granting equal benefits to same-sex couples and other
domestic partners as heterosexual married couples.
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court through the Florida
Courts eFiling Portal to be served this 10th of October, 2014, on counsel of record
listed below:
s/Robert F. Rosenwald
ROBERT F. ROSENWALD, JR.
17
SERVICE LIST
ELLEN E. WARE, ESQUIRE ADAM B. CORD OVER, ESQUIRE
600 S. Magnolia Ave., Ste. 225 adam@cordoverlaw.com
Tampa, FL 33606 paralegal@cordoverlaw.com
Telephone: (813)254-8500 THE LAW FIRM OF ADAM B.
attyware@tampabay.rr.com CORDOVER, P.A.
BRETT R. RAHALL, ESQUIRE DEBORAH L. THOMSON,
120 South Willow Avenue ESQUIRE
Tampa, Florida 33606 dthomson@thewomenslawgroup.com
Telephone: (813) 258-8888 scaudill@thewomenslawgroup.com
brett@brettrahall.com LARA G. DAVIS, ESQUIRE
ldavis@thewomenslawgroup.com
BRIDGET REMINGTON, ESQURE THE WOMEN'S LAW GROUP,
601 Bayshore Boulevard, Ste. 615 P.L.
Tampa, FL 33606 Counsel for Appellee
Telephone: (813)440-2656
bridget.remington@hhpalaw.com
Counsel for Appellant
ADAM S. TANENBAUM, CYNTHIA L. GREENE, ESQUIRE
ESQUIRE LISETTE GONZALEZ, ESQUIRE
adam. tanenbaum@myfloridalegal.com gspa@greenesmithlaw.com
phyllis.thomas@myfloridalegal.com clg@greenesmithlaw.com
adam.tanenbauml@gmail.com yv@greenesmithlaw.com
ALLEN WINSOR, ESQUIRE GREENE SMITH &
allen. winsor@myfloridalegal.com ASSOCIATES, P .A.
allenwinsor@yahoo.com
OFFICE OF THE FLORIDA
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
18
CHRISTOPHER RUMBOLD, ROBERT ROSENWALD,
ESQUIRE ESQUIRE
service@gwpa.com robertrosenwald@miamibeachfl.gov
GLADSTONE & WEISSMAN yamilexmorales@miamibeachfl.gov
NICHOLAS E. KALLERGIS,
ESQUIRE
nickkallergis@miamibeachfl.gov
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
KERRY EZROL, ESQUIRE AMY IENNACO, ESQUIRE
kezrol@cityatty.com amy.iennaco@cityoforlando.net
GOREN CHEROF DOODY & tracey. duffi eld@cityoforlando.net
EZROL, P.A. CITY OF ORLANDO
Counsel for the City of Wilton Manors
JONI ARMSTRONG COFFEY, MARK WINN, ESQUIRE
ESQUIRE mark. winn@stpete.org
j acoffey@broward.org JEANNINE WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
MARK JOURNEY, ESQUIRE jeannine.williams@stpete.org
mjoumey@broward.org CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG
BROW ARD COUNTY
JULIA MANDELL, ESQUIRE JOHN HEARN, ESQUIRE
J ulia.Mandell@tampagov.net attyheam@aol.com
ROBIN HORTON-SILVERMAN, Counsel for the Village of Biscayne
ESQUIRE Park
Robin.Horton-
Silverman@tampagov.net
CITY OF TAMPA
19
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this brief is submitted in Times New Roman 14-
point font and complies with the font requirements of Rule 9.210(a)(2), Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
s/Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr.
ROBERT F. ROSENWALD, JR.
20
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager Jimmy Morales
FROM: Mayor Philip Levine
DATE: June 10, 2014
SUBJECT: Agenda Item for June 11, 2014 City Commission Meeting
Please place a discussion item on the June 11, 2014 City Commission meeting agenda
regarding the resolution of the City's LGBT Business Enhancement Committee and Human
Rights Committee recommending that the City of Miami Beach file an amicus curiae brief in the
Florida marriage equality lawsuits.
Lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in the Miami marriage equality lawsuit, Pareto v. Ruvin, has
requested that the City file an amicus brief in support of the Plaintiffs in that case as well as
other Florida marriage equality cases. An amicus brief is a "friend of the court" brief that states
the City's support for marriage equality in the courts.
Additionally, other cities would be invited and encouraged to sign onto our brief in support.
The proposed amicus brief would be drafted by Robert Rosenwald in the City Attorneys' office.
The brief would not take a major time commitment and there is no major expense associated
with it.
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best Regards,
Alex Miranda
On behalf of Mayor Philip Levine
F:\ATTOIROSRIRFR CMBIMARRIAGE EQUALITYIMayor and Commission Memo (AMICUS BRIEF).docx