Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
08-02-2012-gill-v-opm-response-to-blag-cert-petition.pdf

08-02-2012-gill-v-opm-response-to-blag-cert-petition.pdf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,715 |Likes:
Published by Chris Geidner

More info:

Published by: Chris Geidner on Aug 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Nos. 12-13 & 12-15
I
N THE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 
 _________ B
IPARTISAN
L
EGAL
 A 
DVISORY 
G
ROUP OF THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
,
Petitioner 
,v.N
 ANCY 
G
ILL
,
ET AL
.,
Respondents 
. _____________ U
NITED
S
TATES
D
EPARTMENT OF
H
EALTH AND
H
UMAN
S
ERVICES
,
ET AL
.,
Petitioners,
v.C
OMMONWEALTH OF
M
 ASSACHUSETTS
,
ET AL
.,
 
Respondents.
  _____________ 
On Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 _____________ 
BRIEF IN RESPONSE OF NANCY GILL ET AL.
 _____________ 
F
OLEY 
H
OAG LLP
 Claire Laporte Ara B. GershengornMatthew E. MillerCatherine Deneke155 Seaport Blvd.Boston, MA 02210(617) 832-1000S
ULLIVAN
&
 
W
ORCESTER LLP
 David J. NagleRichard L. JonesOne Post Office SquareBoston, MA 02109(617) 338-2800
*Counsel of Record 
 G
 AY 
&
 
L
ESBIAN
 A 
DVOCATES
&
 
D
EFENDERS
 Gary D. BuseckMary L. Bonauto* Vickie L. HenryJanson Wu30 Winter Street, Suite 800Boston, MA 02108(617) 426-1350mbonauto@glad.orgJ
ENNER
&
 
B
LOCK LLP
 Paul M. SmithLuke C. PlatzerMatthew J. DunneMelissa A. Cox1099 New York Ave, NW, Suite 900Washington, DC 20001(202) 639-6000
 
OUNSEL FOR 
ESPONDENTS 
 ANCY 
ILL 
,
ET AL 
.
 
 
QUESTION PRESENTED
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act defines“marriage” for purposes of all federal statutes,regulations, and agency interpretations as the unionof one man and one woman and defines “spouse” as ahusband or wife of someone of the opposite sex.1 U.S.C. § 7. As a result, with respect to more than1,100 federal statutes, lawfully married same-sexcouples are denied the benefits and responsibilitiesaccorded to lawfully married opposite-sex couples.The question presented is:Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, violates the equalprotection guarantee of the Fifth Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution as applied to legallymarried same-sex couples.
 
ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
The Respondents are Nancy Gill and MarcelleLetourneau, Martin Koski and James Fitzgerald,Dean Hara, Mary Ritchie and Kathleen Bush, Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez, Marlin Nabors andJonathan Knight, Mary Bowe-Shulman and DoreneBowe-Shulman, Jo Ann Whitehead and Bette JoGreen, Randall Lewis-Kendell, and Herbert Burtis.The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S.House of Representatives was an intervenor in thecourt below and is a Petitioner here.Separate Petitioners are the United StatesDepartment of Health and Human Services;Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and HumanServices; the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs; the Office of Personnel Management; theUnited States Postal Service; Patrick R. Donahoe,Postmaster General of the United States of America;Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security;Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General; and theUnited States of America.The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was also an Appellee in the court below and is a Respondent inthis Court.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->