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
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
AFER - Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition - Prop 8 Challenge

AFER - Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition - Prop 8 Challenge

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10,638 |Likes:
Published by Chris Geidner

More info:

Published by: Chris Geidner on Aug 24, 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

01/16/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 12-144
I
N
T
HE
 
 pìéêÉãÉ=`çìêí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáíÉÇ=pí~íÉë=
 _______________ 
D
ENNIS
H
OLLINGSWORTH
,
ET AL
.,
 Petitioners,
 v.
RISTIN
M.
 
P
ERRY 
,
ET AL
.,
 
 Respondents
.
 
 _______________ 
On Petition For A Writ Of CertiorariTo The United States Court Of AppealsFor The Ninth Circuit
 _______________ 
 
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
 _______________ 
D
 AVID
B
OIES
 B
OIES
,
 
S
CHILLER
&
 
F
LEXNER
LLP333 Main Street Armonk, N.Y. 10504(914) 749-8200T
HEODORE
J.
 
B
OUTROUS
,
 
J
R
.C
HRISTOPHER
D.
 
D
USSEAULT
 T
HEANE
E
 VANGELIS
 APUR
 E
NRIQUE
 A.
 
M
ONAGAS
 J
OSHUA 
S.
 
L
IPSHUTZ
 G
IBSON
,
 
D
UNN
&
 
C
RUTCHER
LLP333 South Grand AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90071(213) 229-7804T
HEODORE
B.
 
O
LSON
 
Counsel of Record
 M
 ATTHEW
D.
 
M
C
G
ILL
  A 
MIR
C.
 
T
 AYRANI
 G
IBSON
,
 
D
UNN
&
 
C
RUTCHER
LLP1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 955-8500tolson@gibsondunn.comJ
EREMY 
M.
 
G
OLDMAN
 B
OIES
,
 
S
CHILLER
&
 
F
LEXNER
LLP1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900Oakland,
 
CA 
 
94612(510)
 
874-1000
Counsel for Respondents
 Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo
 
 
 
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether it violates the Due Process and EqualProtection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment fora State to use the ballot-initiative process to extin-guish the state constitutional right of gay men andlesbians to marry a person of the same sex.
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
 
OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1
 
JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1
 
STATEMENT .............................................................. 1
 
REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION .......... 11
 
I.
 
T
HE
D
ECISION
B
ELOW
I
S
 A 
 
C
ORRECT
 A 
PPLICATION
O
F
T
HIS
C
OURT
S
D
ECISION
I
N
 R
OMER V 
.
 
 E
VANS
....................... 12
 
II.
 
T
HE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
S
D
ECISION
D
OES
N
OT
C
ONFLICT
W
ITH
 A 
NY 
D
ECISION
O
F
T
HIS
C
OURT
O
R
 A 
NY 
C
OURT
O
F
 A 
PPEALS
...... 20
 
III.
 
 A 
LTERNATIVE
G
ROUNDS
R
EQUIRE
T
HE
S
 AME
O
UTCOME
R
EACHED
B
 Y 
T
HE
C
OURT
O
F
 A 
PPEALS
....................................... 26
 
 A. Proponents Lacked Standing To Appeal The District Court’sDecision .................................................. 26
 
B. Denying Gay Men And LesbiansThe Fundamental Right To Marry Violates Equal Protection ...................... 27
 
C. Denying Gay Men And LesbiansThe Fundamental Right To Marry Violates Due Process .............................. 31
 
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 35
 

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)//-->