Marcum v. McWhorter

 5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21 3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH  (/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU )LOH 1DPH DS 81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6 )257+(6,;7+&,5&8,7 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB /(:(// 0$5&80 ; 3ODLQWLII$SSHOODQW    1R Y  !  -$0(6 0&:+257(5DV  LQWHULP6KHULIIRI3XODVNL  &RXQW\.HQWXFN\  'HIHQGDQW$SSHOOHH   1 $SSHDOIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW IRUWKH(DVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI.HQWXFN\DW/RQGRQ 1R²-HQQLIHU%&RIIPDQ'LVWULFW-XGJH $UJXHG0D\ 'HFLGHGDQG)LOHG6HSWHPEHU %HIRUH0$57,1&KLHI&LUFXLW-XGJH6,/(5DQG&/$ W@KHVLJQLILFDQFHRI%ULJJVOLHVLQWKH Additionally, Sheriff Catron received numerous complaints IDFWWKDWWKHRIILFHULQWKDWFDVHZDVGLVPLVVHGVROHO\EHFDXVH concerning Marcum’s association with Abbott from RIKLVOLYLQJVWDWXVZLWKRXWDQ\UHIHUHQFHDVWRKRZWKDWVWDWXV employees within his department, as well as persons working FRXOGKDYHDIIHFWHGKLVSHUIRUPDQFHDVDQRIILFHU´+XJKHV at the courthouse and various citizens within the community. )GDW3ODLQWLIIPHW$EERWWRQWKHMREZKHUHVKH VHUYHGDVDFRQILGHQWLDOLQIRUPDQWKHZDVUHSULPDQGHGIRU The relationship reached a turning point in September WKHWLPHKHVSHQWZLWKKHUZKLOHRQGXW\DQGRQDWOHDVWRQH 1997. While on duty on September 4, Marcum informed RFFDVLRQVKRUWO\EHIRUHKLVGLVFKDUJHKDGDSXEOLFDOWHUFDWLRQ Abbott that her husband was making passes at her best friend. ZLWKKLVDGXOWGDXJKWHURYHUWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDWKLVZRUNSODFH Abbott asked Marcum to go with her to confront the woman, &I %ULJJV  )6XSS DW  QRWLQJ WKDW SODLQWLII KDG which he agreed to do. After receiving confirmation of SHUIRUPHG KLV GXWLHV VDWLVIDFWRULO\ XS XQWLO WKH WLPH RI KLV Marcum’s information, Abbott moved out of the marital VXVSHQVLRQ DQG WKDW SODLQWLII KLPVHOI EURXJKW KLV OLYLQJ residence and into her brother’s cottage where she remained DUUDQJHPHQWVWRWKHDWWHQWLRQRIKLVVXSHULRU  with her children until September 9 or 10. During her stay at the cottage, Abbott discussed with Marcum her inability to 7KH 6XSUHPH&RXUWKDVKHOGWKDWWKHUHDUHOLPLWVRQWKH rent a place of her own and the possibility of their renting a W\SHV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW PLJKW ZDUUDQW FRQVWLWXWLRQDO place together, sharing expenses. There had been no SURWHFWLRQ  5REHUWV  86 DW   $OWKRXJK VXFK discussion of cohabitation between Marcum and Abbott prior SURWHFWLRQLVH[WHQGHGEH\RQGIDPLOLDOUHODWLRQVKLSVWKXVIDU to Abbott’s leaving her husband. WKH &RXUW KDV QHYHUWKHOHVV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV PRVWOLNHO\WRZDUUDQWVXFKSURWHFWLRQDUHWKRVHWKDWLQYROYH The two then rented a townhouse and began living together ³GHHSDWWDFKPHQWVDQGFRPPLWPHQWV´LQZKLFKRQHVKDUHV on September 9 or 10. Marcum testified that they were not DPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKRVH³SHUVRQDODVSHFWVRIRQH¶VOLIH´,G contemplating sharing a life together, or anything of that DW%HFDXVH,ILQGWKDWWKHREMHFWLYHIDFWRUVWKDWWKH nature when they assumed their cohabitation. Abbott testified 6XSUHPH&RXUWKDVLQVWUXFWHGFRXUWVWRHPSOR\LQGHWHUPLQLQJ that at the time they moved into the townhouse, the arrangement was strictly a roommate type relationship with  both paying their share of the costs. Marcum also testified 7KLV LV QRW WR H[SUHVV DQ RSLQLRQ RQ WKH XOWLPDWH UHDVRQ IRU that he and Abbott did not engage in sexual relations until 3ODLQWLII¶V GLVFKDUJH DV WKLV PD\ EH GLVSXWHG 7KLV LV VLPSO\ WR SRLQW RXW after they moved in together. Abbott’s testimony, however, WKDW 3ODLQWLII FDQQRW FODLP RQ WKLV UHFRUG WKDW KLV UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV D SXUHO\ SULYDWH DIIDLU WKDW GLG QRW DIIHFW KLV GXWLHV places the date of their first sexual relations on September 5,  0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU  the day after she left her husband and prior to her cohabitation YLRODWLYHRIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDVWDWHFRQVWLWXWLRQDODPHQGPHQW with Marcum. Noting this inconsistency, but viewing the WKDWDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVUHSHDOHGH[LVWLQJODZWKDWEDQQHG facts in the light most favorable to Marcum, the district court GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW KRPRVH[XDOV DQG QRWLQJ ZLWKRXW found that Marcum and Abbott were romantically involved to UHIHUHQFH WR %RZHUV WKDW UHDFK RI DPHQGPHQW FRXOG some degree when they moved in together. SRWHQWLDOO\VXEMHFWWKLVJURXSWRDUELWUDU\GLVFULPLQDWLRQ %XW VHHLGDWFRQWHQGLQJWKDWVWDWHDPHQGPHQWGHSULYLQJ Regardless of their relationship prior to their cohabitation, KRPRVH[XDOVRIULJKWVZDVUDWLRQDOLQDVPXFKDV&RXUWKDG it is undisputed that Marcum and Abbott were romantically KHOG LQ %RZHUV WKDW IURP WKH LQFHSWLRQ RI WKH FRXQWU\ involved during the time they lived together and certainly at KRPRVH[XDOFRQGXFWZDVDFULPH 6FDOLD-GLVVHQWLQJ  the time of Marcum’s dismissal. After learning of this living arrangement, Sheriff Catron told Marcum that either he or ,QDQ\HYHQW,DJUHHZLWKWKHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQWKDW3ODLQWLII Abbott would have to move out. Marcum was discharged on IDLOVWRVKRZWKDWDQDVVHVVPHQWRIWKHREMHFWLYHIDFWRUVRIKLV September 19, 1997, upon his perceived failure to comply UHODWLRQVKLSSODFHVLWDWWKHHQGRIWKHVSHFWUXPZLWKWKRVH with Catron’s directive. The living arrangement between UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV IRXQG ZDUUDQW Marcum and Abbott lasted approximately one month.2Q FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQXQGHUWKH)LUVW$PHQGPHQW¶VULJKW 2FWREHU$EERWWOHIWWRUHFRQFLOHZLWKKHUKXVEDQG7KH RILQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQ$OWKRXJK3ODLQWLII¶VUHODWLRQVKLSZLWK PDLQUHDVRQVKHFLWHGIRUOHDYLQJZDVWKDWKHUROGHVWGDXJKWHU 5HQD$EERWWLQYROYHGRQO\WZRLQGLYLGXDOVDQGZDVVH[XDOLQ GLG QRW JHW DORQJ ZLWK 0DUFXP  6KH DOVR WHVWLILHG WKDW QDWXUH WKH UHFRUG GRHV QRW VXSSRUW WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW WKLV 0DUFXP³ZDVJHWWLQJWRRVHULRXVDQG>VKH@MXVWZDVQ¶WUHDG\ UHODWLRQVKLSZDVHQWHUHGLQWRDQGPDLQWDLQHG WRIRUPGHHS IRUWKHUHODWLRQVKLS´ SHUVRQDOFRPPLWPHQWVDQGDWWDFKPHQWV5REHUWV86DW 5DWKHULQDVVHVVLQJWKHUHODWLRQVKLS¶VSXUSRVHQRW 0DUFXP ILOHG D  86& †  DFWLRQ IRU ZURQJIXO RQO\ZHUHERWK3ODLQWLIIDQG$EERWWPDUULHGWRRWKHUSHRSOH WHUPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW 6KHULII &DWURQ LQ KLV LQGLYLGXDO DQG EXW $EERWW WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH SXUSRVH RI WKHLU PRYLQJ LQ RIILFLDO FDSDFLW\ DOOHJLQJ WKDW KH ZDV ILUHG EHFDXVH RI KLV WRJHWKHU ZDV PHUHO\ LQWHQGHG WR EH D ³URRPPDWH W\SH RI UHODWLRQVKLSDQGFRKDELWDWLRQZLWK$EERWWLQYLRODWLRQRIKLV DUUDQJHPHQW´)XUWKHU3ODLQWLIIFDQQRWFODLPWKDWRWKHUVWUXO\ FRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWV7KHGLVWULFWFRXUWGLVPLVVHG0DUFXP¶V ZHUH H[FOXGHG IURP WKH FULWLFDO DVSHFWV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS )LUVW$PHQGPHQWFODLPVDQGKLVIUHHGRPRIDVVRFLDWLRQFODLP LQDVPXFKDV$EERWWOHIWWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDQGWKHUHVLGHQFHVKH DJDLQVW&DWURQLQKLVLQGLYLGXDOFDSDFLW\RQWKHJURXQGVRI VKDUHGZLWK3ODLQWLIIZLWKLQDSSUR[LPDWHO\RQHPRQWKVRWKDW TXDOLILHGLPPXQLW\7KHRQO\FODLPVZKLFKVXUYLYHGZHUH VKH FRXOG UHFRQFLOH ZLWK KHU RZQ KXVEDQG  8QOLNH WKH 0DUFXP¶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³WKDW PD\ PDNH JUHDWHU RU OHVVHU FODLPV WR FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ IURP SDUWLFXODU LQFXUVLRQV E\ WKH 6WDWH´ 5REHUWV   86 DW  7KRVH UHODWLRQVKLSV WKH &RXUW KDV PRVW UHDGLO\ 0DUFXP DUJXHV WKDW WKH XOWLPDWH GXUDWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LV QRW DIIRUGHG SURWHFWLRQ JHQHUDOO\ LQFOXGH WKRVH SHUWDLQLQJ WR PDUULDJH DQG UHOHYDQW WR WKH GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IDPLO\ ,G DW  $V DW OHDVW RQH FRXUW LQ WKLV FLUFXLW KDV QRWHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ SURWHFWHG DW WKH WLPH KH ZDV GLVPLVVHG :H DJUHH ZLWK ³DGXOWHURXV FRQGXFW LV WKH YHU\ DQWLWKHVLV RI PDUULDJH DQG IDPLO\´ WKLV DVVHUWLRQ DQG DV WKH GLVFXVVLRQ ZLOO LOOXVWUDWH WKH VKRUW GXUDWLRQ RI 0HFXUH Y 9DQ %XUHQ 7RZQVKLS  ) 6XSS G   (' 0LFK WKH FRKDELWDWLRQ LV QRW D IDFWRU LQ RXU DQDO\VLV  FLWDWLRQ RPLWWHG   0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU  6XSUHPH &RXUW UHMHFWHG D FRQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDOOHQJH WR 0DUFXP¶V H[WUDPDULWDO UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV QRW HQWLWOHG WR *HRUJLD¶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¶VVXPPDU\MXGJPHQWGHFLVLRQ &RXUWUHIXVHGWRH[WHQGDIXQGDPHQWDOULJKWWRKRPRVH[XDOV GHQRYR6HH:DWNLQVY%DWWOH&UHHN)GWK WR HQJDJH LQ FRQVHQVXDO VRGRP\  ,G DW   7KH GLVWULFW &LU 6XPPDU\MXGJPHQWVKRXOGEHJUDQWHGZKHQ³WKH FRXUWEHORZDQGDSSDUHQWO\WKHPDMRULW\FLWH%RZHUVEHFDXVH SOHDGLQJV GHSRVLWLRQV DQVZHUV WR LQWHUURJDWRULHV DQG WKHUHLQWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWZRXOGQRWWDNHDQH[SDQVLYHYLHZ DGPLVVLRQVRQILOHWRJHWKHUZLWKWKHDIILGDYLWVLIDQ\VKRZ DQGUHMHFWHGDQLQYLWDWLRQWRGLVFRYHUQHZIXQGDPHQWDOULJKWV WKDWWKHUHLVQRJHQXLQHLVVXHDVWRDQ\PDWHULDOIDFWDQGWKDW LPEHGGHGLQWKHGXHSURFHVVFODXVHLHWKHULJKWWRHQJDJH WKHPRYLQJSDUW\LVHQWLWOHGWRDMXGJPHQWDVDPDWWHURIODZ´ LQKRPRVH[XDOVRGRP\7KHDUJXPHQWWKHUHIRUHJRHVWKDWWKLV )HG 5 &LY 3 F   7KXV VXPPDry judgment is &RXUWVKRXOGQRWH[SDQGWKHULJKWRILQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQWR appropriate if a party who has the burden of proof at trial fails LQFOXGH UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW PLJKW EH FRQVLGHUHG DGXOWHURXV to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an +RZHYHU GHVSLWH %RZHUV ³WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV QRW element that is essential to that party's case. See Celotex GHILQLWLYHO\DQVZHUHGWKHGLIILFXOWTXHVWLRQZKHWKHUDQGWR Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). ZKDWH[WHQWWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQSURKLELWVDVWDWHRUVWDWHDFWRU IURP UHJXODWLQJ WKH SULYDWH FRQVHQVXDO VH[XDO EHKDYLRU RI Discussion DGXOWV´+XJKHVY&LW\RI12OPVWHG)G WK &LU    )XUWKHU LQ OLJKW RI WKH NLQG RI UHDVRQLQJ Marcum maintains that his exclusive, romantic and sexually VXJJHVWHGE\%ULJJVLWFDQQRWEHVDLGWKDWDUHODWLRQVKLSWKDW intimate relationship and cohabitation with a married woman PLJKW EH FRQVLGHUHG DGXOWHURXV LSVR IDFWR VWULSV WKH is entitled to protection under the constitutional right of UHODWLRQVKLSRIDOOFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ%RZHUVGRHVQRW association and, as a result, the Sheriff could not legally fire UHTXLUHWKDWZHJLYHGLVSRVLWLYHZHLJKWHQWLUHO\WRRQHIDFWRU him for such behavior. He argues that the district court WKHDGXOWHURXVQDWXUHRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDQGLJQRUHDOORWKHU erroneously dismissed his claim by categorically denying IDFWRUVWKH&RXUWVHWIRUWKLQ5REHUWVDQGH[SRXQGHGXSRQLQ constitutional protection based on its labeling his relationship 5RWDU\GHFLGHGDIWHU%RZHUV LQDVVHVVLQJZKHWKHUDFHUWDLQ "adulterous," offending the spirit of the Constitution and UHODWLRQVKLSVKRXOGEHDIIRUGHGFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ ignoring the factors and analysis set forth by the United States Supreme Court. :KDWHYHUWKHSHUFHLYHGUHDFKRI%RZHUVDPDMRULW\RIWKH &RXUW VLQFH %RZHUV KDV QRW DGRSWHG WKH SRVLWLRQ WKDW QR The two seminal cases defining the right of intimate PDWWHU KRZ XQUHDVRQDEOH DQ\ JRYHUQPHQW DFWLRQ WDNHQ association that this court must look to for guidance are DJDLQVWFRQVHQWLQJDGXOWVZKRVHUHODWLRQVKLSVPD\LQYROYH Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), and RWKHUZLVHSHUPLVVLEO\VWDWHSURVFULEHGVH[XDODFWLYLW\VXFKDV Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, KRPRVH[XDO VRGRP\ ZLOO VXUYLYH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO VFUXWLQ\ 481 U.S. 537 (1987). Roberts explained that the EHFDXVHRIWKHQDWXUHRIWKHDGXOW¶VVH[XDODFWLYLW\DORQH6HH constitutionally protected "freedom of association" has been HJ 5RPHU Y (YDQV  86     KROGLQJ recognized in the case law in two distinct forms. First, the  0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU  Supreme Court has identified "a right to associate for the GLYLGHGRYHUZKHWKHUH[WUDPDULWDOVH[XDODFWLYLW\LQFOXGLQJ purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First DGXOWHURXVDFWLYLW\LVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHGLQDZD\WKDW Amendment--speech, assembly, petition for the redress of IRUELGVSXEOLFHPSOR\HUVIURPGLVFLSOLQLQJHPSOR\HHVZKR grievances, and the exercise of religion." Roberts, 468 U.S. HQJDJHLQVXFKDFWLYLW\%ULJJV86DW:KLWH- at 618. Next, the Court has recognized a certain right of GLVVHQWLQJ   -XVWLFH :KLWH ZRXOG KDYH JUDQWHG FHUWLRUDUL intimate association reasoning that "choices to enter into and LQDVPXFK DV WKH FDVH ZRXOG KDYH JLYHQ WKH &RXUW DQ maintain certain intimate human relationships must be RSSRUWXQLW\WRFRQVLGHU³WKHFRQWRXUVRIWKHULJKWRISULYDF\ secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the DIIRUGHGLQGLYLGXDOVIRUVH[XDOPDWWHUV´,G role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme. In this 7KH PDMRULW\ RSLQLRQ FRUUHFWO\ QRWHV WKDW WKH 6XSUHPH respect, freedom of association receives protection as a &RXUWKDVQRWUHVWULFWHGWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWRILQWLPDWH fundamental element of personal liberty." Id. at 617-18. The DVVRFLDWLRQ WR UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ IDPLO\ PHPEHUV  6HH personal relationship at issue in this case does not involve 5RWDU\  86 DW   )XUWKHU WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV expressive activity. Rather, this case involves an alleged UHMHFWHGWKHDUJXPHQWWKDWDOWKRXJKSXEOLFHPSOR\PHQWPD\ intrusion by the state into Marcum’s intimate human EHGHQLHGDOWRJHWKHUVXFKHPSOR\PHQWPD\EHVXEMHFWWRDQ\ relationship in violation of his right of intimate association. FRQGLWLRQ DW DOO QR PDWWHU KRZ XQUHDVRQDEOH   6HH HJ 3LFNHULQJY%GRI(GXFRI7RZQVKLS+LJK6FKRRO'LVW The Court in Roberts expressed that in order to secure 86 FLWLQJ.H\LVKLDQY%RDUGRI5HJHQWV individual liberty, it "must afford the formation and 86 )RUDVWDWHWRGLVPLVVDQLQGLYLGXDO preservation of certain kinds of highly personal relationships VROHO\EHFDXVHWKHUHODWLRQVKLSLQZKLFKKHRUVKHLVLQYROYHG a substantial measure of sanctuary from unjustified PLJKWEHODEHOHGDGXOWHURXVPD\EHXQUHDVRQDEOHXQGHUVRPH interference by the State." Id. at 618 (citations omitted). FLUFXPVWDQFHV  )RU LQVWDQFH XQGHU WKH PDMRULW\ RSLQLRQ¶V Without precisely defining every consideration underlying DSSURDFK HYHQ D ORQJWHUP UHODWLRQVKLS LQ ZKLFK WKH this type of constitutional protection, the Court noted that SDUWLFLSDQWVKDYHUHVLGHGWRJHWKHUUDLVHGFKLOGUHQDQGOLYHG "certain kinds of personal bonds have played a critical role in HVVHQWLDOO\DVDPDUULHGFRXSOHFRXOGEHEH\RQGWKHSDOHRI the culture and traditions of the Nation by cultivating and FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQZKHUHRQHRUERWKLQGLYLGXDOVIRU transmitting shared ideals and beliefs." Id. at 618-19. ZKDWHYHU UHDVRQ KDV QHYHU OHJDOO\ WHUPLQDWHG D SULRU (citations omitted). The personal affiliations that exemplify PDUULDJHDQGKHQFHFRXOGQRWUHPDUU\7KLVZRXOGKROGWUXH the considerations that warrant constitutional protection and XQGHU WKH PDMRULW\¶V UHDVRQLQJ GHVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW VXFK D suggest limitations on the relationships that might be entitled UHODWLRQVKLS PLJKW FHUWDLQO\ ³SUHVXSSRVH GHHS DWWDFKPHQWV to constitutional shelter "are those that attend the creation and DQGFRPPLWPHQWV´LQZKLFKWKHLQGLYLGXDOV³VKDUH>@QRWRQO\ sustenance of a family," which "are distinguished by such DVSHFLDOFRPPXQLW\RIWKRXJKWVH[SHULHQFHVDQGEHOLHIVEXW DOVRGLVWLQFWLYHO\SHUVRQDODVSHFWVRI>WKHLUOLYHV@´5REHUWV attributes as relative smallness, a high degree of selectivity in 86DW decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation, and seclusion from others in critical aspects of the relationship." Id. 619-20 7KHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQUHOLHVKHDYLO\RQ%RZHUVY+DUGZLFN (citations omitted). 86 DQGQRWHVWKDWWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWKDV UHMHFWHG WKH SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW ³DQ\ NLQG RI SULYDWH VH[XDO To determine the limits of state authority over an FRQGXFW EHWZHHQ FRQVHQWLQJ DGXOWV LV FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ individual’s freedom to enter into a particular association, it LQVXODWHGIURPVWDWHSURVFULSWLRQ´,GDW,Q%RZHUVWKH is the task of the court to engage in "a careful assessment of  0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU  SHUVRQDORUSULYDWHWRZDUUDQWFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQFRXUWV where that relationship’s objective characteristics locate it on PD\FRQVLGHUVL]HSXUSRVHVHOHFWLYLW\DQGZKHWKHURWKHUVDUH a spectrum from the most intimate to the most attenuated of H[FOXGHGIURPWKHFULWLFDODVSHFWVRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLS6HH%G personal attachments," taking into consideration factors that RI'LUVRI5RWDU\,QW¶OY5RWDU\&OXERI'XDUWH86 may include "size, purpose, policies, selectivity, congeniality,  VHHDOVR5REHUWV86DWQRWLQJ and other characteristics" that may be pertinent. Id. at 620. WKDWFRXUWVPD\DOVRFRQVLGHU³RWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWLQD Rotary added that while the exact boundaries of this type of SDUWLFXODUFDVHPD\EHSHUWLQHQW´  constitutional protection were not marked, it is not restricted to relationships among family members. See Rotary, 481 7KHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQKROGVWKDWWKH³DGXOWHURXVQDWXUHRI U.S. at 545. The Court emphasized that protection is afforded WKHUHODWLRQVKLS>LQWKLVFDVH@GRHVQRWSRUWUD\DUHODWLRQVKLS to those relationships that "presuppose deep attachments and RI WKH PRVW LQWLPDWH YDULHW\ DIIRUGHG SURWHFWLRQ XQGHU WKH commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with &RQVWLWXWLRQ´  %URDGO\ FRQVWUXHG WKLV KROGLQJ DSSHDUV WR whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, LQGLFDWH WKDW UHJDUGOHVV RI DQ\ RWKHU IDFWRUV WKDW PLJKW EH experiences, and beliefs but also distinctively personal aspects FRQVLGHUHG LQ DVVHVVLQJ ZKHWKHU D UHODWLRQVKLS VKRXOG EH of one’s life." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation DIIRUGHGFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQWKHRQO\UHOHYDQWIDFWRULQ omitted). GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU D UHODWLRQVKLS VKRXOG EH DIIRUGHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQLQDFDVHOLNHWKHSUHVHQWLVZKHWKHU Marcum argues that the district court failed to assess the WKH UHODWLRQVKLS FDQ EH GHHPHG DGXOWHURXV  , EHOLHYH WKDW attributes and qualities of the relationship between him and ZKLOHUHOHYDQWLQPDNLQJVXFKDGHWHUPLQDWLRQWKHDGXOWHURXV Abbott. Instead, he contends that the court ignored the factors QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DORQH VKRXOG QRW EH GLVSRVLWLYH and analysis set forth in Roberts and Rotary, and focused ,QGHHGSUHFHGHQWIURPWKLVFLUFXLWGHPRQVWUDWHVDVPXFK exclusively on whether the relationship attends the creation or sustenance of a family. Marcum correctly points out that ,Q%ULJJVY10XVNHJRQ3ROLFH'HS¶W)6XSS based on the Court’s decision in Rotary, constitutional :' 0LFK   DII¶G PHP  )G  WK &LU protection is not limited to family relationships. See id. The  FHUWGHQLHG86 WKHGLVWULFWFRXUW district court, however, noted that relationships afforded this DIWHUDEHQFKWULDOIRXQGWKDWGHIHQGDQWVYLRODWHGDSODLQWLII¶V type of constitutional protection are not restricted to those FRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWWRSULYDF\E\WHUPLQDWLQJDQGUHIXVLQJWR UHLQVWDWHKLPDVDSROLFHRIILFHUIRUKLVFRKDELWDWLRQZLWKD between family members. Moreover, the district court ZRPDQZKLOHWKH\ZHUHERWKPDUULHGWRRWKHUSHRSOH acknowledged the appropriate analysis set forth in Roberts )6XSSDW7KHSODLQWLIIFRQWHQGHGWKDWWKHGHIHQGDQWV¶ and Rotary and examined the objective characteristics of the DFWVKDGLQWUXGHGRQKLVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\JXDUDQWHHGULJKWVRI relationship between Marcum and Abbott. While there are SULYDF\DQGDVVRFLDWLRQDQGWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWDJUHHG,GDW relationships other than those between family members that  may be afforded constitutional protection, it does not follow that any relationship that could be objectively qualified as $OWKRXJK %ULJJV KDV QR SUHFHGHQWLDO YDOXH EHFDXVH WKLV "intimate" should be protected. &RXUWLVVXHGQRSXEOLVKHGRSLQLRQZHQHYHUWKHOHVVDIILUPHG WKH MXGJPHQW RI WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW ZKLFK IRXQG WKDW WKH Looking at the factors enunciated in Roberts, 468 U.S. at DGXOWHURXV UHODWLRQVKLS LQYROYHG LQ WKDW FDVH ZDUUDQWHG 620, and Rotary, 481 U.S. at 545-46, Marcum contends that FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ,QWKHGLVVHQWIURPWKHGHQLDORI the court failed to recognize that the association was relatively FHUWLRUDULLQ%ULJJV-XVWLFH:KLWHQRWHGWKDWWKHFLUFXLWVZHUH small - just the two of them; highly selective in the decision to begin and maintain the affiliation; and others were secluded  0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU  from the relationship. Based on these objective characteristics BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB and the fact that he and Abbott shared thoughts, experiences and personal aspects of their lives, Marcum argues that the &21&855(1&( relationship is constitutionally protected under the right of BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB intimate association. Although these factors may weigh in favor of a finding of a protected relationship, we find that the &/$ D@VDSSOLHGWKXVIDULQ6XSUHPH&RXUW FDVHODZWKHIUHHGRPRILQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQLVFRH[WHQVLYH ZLWK WKH ULJKW RI SULYDF\ ERWK WKH IUHHGRP RI LQWLPDWH DVVRFLDWLRQ DQG WKH ULJKW RI SULYDF\ GHVFULEH WKDW ERG\ RI ULJKWV WKDW SURWHFW LQWLPDWH KXPDQ UHODWLRQVKLSV IURP XQZDUUDQWHGLQWUXVLRQRULQWHUIHUHQFHE\WKHVWDWH´  In Bowers, the Supreme Court rejected the proposition that "any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription." Bowers, 478 U.S. at 191. Rather, the Court characterized the fundamental liberties recognized in prior decisions qualifying for heightened judicial scrutiny as those that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed" and "deeply  0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU  rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition." Id. at 191-92 continue to outlaw extramarital acts.The fact that adultery (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court is no longer illegal in the Commonwealth of Kentucky does held that neither of these formulations extended a not establish that such conduct is a fundamental liberty fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of protected by the Constitution.  %DVHG RQ WKH KLVWRULFDO consensual sodomy, noting that sodomy was a criminal WUHDWPHQWRIDGXOWHU\DULJKWWRHQJDJHLQDQLQWLPDWHVH[XDO offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the UHODWLRQVKLSZLWKWKHVSRXVHRIDQRWKHUFDQQRWEHVDLGWREH thirteen states when they ratified the Bill of Rights. See id. at HLWKHUGHHSO\URRWHGLQWKLV1DWLRQ¶VKLVWRU\DQGWUDGLWLRQRU 192. Accordingly, it held that a right to engage in this LPSOLFLWLQWKHFRQFHSWRIRUGHUHGOLEHUW\7KXVIROORZLQJWKH conduct was not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and 6XSUHPH&RXUW¶VGHFLVLRQLQ%RZHUVZHGHFOLQHWRDFFRUG tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. See id. 0DUFXP¶V DGXOWHURXV UHODWLRQVKLS WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO at 194. Furthermore, the Court expressed its reluctance to SURWHFWLRQDIIRUGHGWKRVHLQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQVZKLFKUHFHLYH "take a more expansive view of our authority to discover new SURWHFWLRQDVDIXQGDPHQWDOHOHPHQWRISHUVRQDOOLEHUW\ fundamental rights imbedded in the Due Process Clause," observing that "[t]he Court is most vulnerable and comes Relying on both the language and spirit of Bowers, the nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made court in Mercure v. Van Buren Township, 81 F. Supp. 2d 814 constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the (E.D. Mich. 2000), held that the constitutional protections of language or design of the Constitution." Id. the First and Fourteenth Amendments, embodied in the right of intimate association, did not extend to a police officer’s Bowers is factually analogous to this case in that it adulterous relationship with the wife of a fellow officer; thus, evaluates a consensual sexual relationship between two adults there was no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his and it provides an expansion on the analysis set forth in discharge. See Mercure, 81 F. Supp. 2d at 825. The district Roberts and Rotary for cases dealing with private, sexual court found Mercure to be "both informative and persuasive relationships. Much like sodomy, proscriptions against albeit not binding precedent." Marcum argues that in adultery have ancient roots. Adultery, though not a crime at Mercure the officer’s relationship with the wife of a fellow English common law, was punishable under the canon law, officer distinguishes it from the present case. Additionally, which was administered by the ecclesiastical courts of he seeks to distinguish Mercure based on the fact that the England. See United States v. Clapox, 35 F. 575, 578 (D. Or. court discussed that Michigan law makes adultery a felony, 1888); 2 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 210 whereas it is no longer illegal in Kentucky. (15th ed. 1994). The common law, brought to this country by the American colonists, did not punish adultery unless the As discussed by the district court, Marcum’s efforts to conduct was "open and notorious" as to amount to a "public distinguish Mercure do not succeed. The fact that the nuisance," as defined by the English canon law. See Cole v. plaintiff’s relationship in Mercure was with the wife of a State, 94 A. 913, 914 (Md. 1915); Torcia, supra. The Puritans, however, made adultery with a married woman a  capital offense and from this Puritan legacy sprung state laws 6HH HJ $UL] 5HY 6WDW † $ )OD 6WDW †  *$ criminalizing adultery. See Jeremy D. Weinstein, Note, &RGH $QQ †  .DQ 6WDW $QQ †  0LFK &RPS /DZV †  1& *HQ 6WDW †  5, *HQ /DZV †  6& &RGH Adultery, Law, and the State: A History, 38 Hastings L.J. $QQ ††   :LV 6WDW $QQ †  195, 225-26 (1986). Even today, there are jurisdictions which  .\ 5HY 6WDW†  PDNLQJ DGXOWHU\ D FULPLQDO RIIHQVH LQ WKH &RPPRQZHDOWK ZDV UHSHDOHG LQ