P. 1
Hawaii Decision Jackson vs Abercromnie

Hawaii Decision Jackson vs Abercromnie

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22,353 |Likes:
Federal Judge Alan Kay Aug 8, 2012 Ruling in Jackson vs Abercrombie Case#102403206 No Gay Marriage
Federal Judge Alan Kay Aug 8, 2012 Ruling in Jackson vs Abercrombie Case#102403206 No Gay Marriage

More info:

Published by: SexualMinorityResear on Aug 09, 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

08/09/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII NATASHA N. JACKSON, JANIN KLEID,and GARY BRADLEY,Plaintiffs,v. NEIL S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor,State of Hawaii, and LORETTA J.FUDDY, Director of Health, Stateof Hawaii,Defendants.and HAWAII FAMILY FORUM,Defendant-Intervenor. )))))))))))))))))))))Civ. No. 11-00734 ACK-KSCORDER GRANTING HFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTFUDDY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT ABERCROMBIE, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT ABERCROMBIE’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 1:11-cv-00734-ACK-KSC Document 117 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 120 PageID #:2886
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS ...........................1PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND......................7FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................11I.Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii ...............11II.Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide ..............18III.Federal Defense of Marriage Act .............22IV.The Parties in This Case.................24STANDARD ...........................25DISCUSSION ..........................28I.Defendant Abercrombies Status as a Party ........28A.Sovereign Immunity .................29B.Article III.....................31II.Baker v. Nelson .....................35A.The Due Process Claim................39B.The Equal Protection Claim .............40III.The Merits of PlaintiffsClaims ............43A.Perry v. Brown ...................44B.Romer v. Evans ...................53C.PlaintiffsDue Process Claim ...........571.Description of the Asserted FundamentalRight .....................592.The Nations History and Tradition.......63D.PlaintiffsEqual Protection ............681.Gender Discrimination .............692.Sexual Orientation Discrimination .......70
Case 1:11-cv-00734-ACK-KSC Document 117 Filed 08/08/12 Page 2 of 120 PageID #:2887
 
iiE.Rational Basis Review ...............791.Standard....................792.Application ..................86a.Plaintiffsand Defendant Abercrombie’sOverarching Arguments...........88i.The Relevant Question ........88ii.Effect of the Civil Unions Law....90b.Encouraging the Stability of Relationshipsthat Have the Ability to ProcreateNaturally.................98c.Promoting the Ideal, Where Possible,Children Are Raised by Their Mother andFather in a Stable Relationship......105d.Cautiously Experimenting With SocialChange ..................111CONCLUSION..........................116
Case 1:11-cv-00734-ACK-KSC Document 117 Filed 08/08/12 Page 3 of 120 PageID #:2888

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

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)//-->