N e v a d a O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l 1 0 0 N o r t h C a r s o n S t r e e t C a r s o n C i t y , N V 8 9 7 0 1 - 4 7 1 7
summary judgment. This Motion is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 56(a), the attachedmemorandum of points and authorities and all of the papers and pleadings on file in this case.DATED this 10th day of September, 2012.CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO Attorney GeneralBy: /s/ C. Wayne HowleC. Wayne HowleSolicitor GeneralNevada State Bar #3443100 North Carson StreetCarson City, Nevada 89701(775) 684-1227(775) 684-1108 (f)
Attorneys for Defendant Hon. Brian Sandoval
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
States like Nevada are sovereign powers under the U.S. Constitution.
Alden v. Maine,
527 U.S. 706, 714 (1999). The State maintains that, under its sovereign authority, its lawsdefining marriage as being between a man and a woman are valid and beyond constitutionalchallenge. The definition of marriage is fundamentally a State decision. It has always been.The United States Supreme Court acknowledged this forty years ago in
Baker v. Nelson
, 409U.S. 810 (1972) and elsewhere. The State may change this definition, or it may prefer itsretention. Other states have in fact altered the definition to allow same-sex marriage. That isthe people’s decision. This present action to override the people’s decision has no support inthe law and should be dismissed.Plaintiffs here seek to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Toaccomplish this, they seek to invalidate, by declaratory judgment, (1) Article 1, sec. 21 of theNevada Constitution; (2) Nevada Revised Statutes § 122.020, and (3) any other sources of state law that exclude same-sex couples from marrying.
Complaint at 29. Plaintiffs havenamed as defendants the Governor of Nevada and three county clerks, all in their officialcapacities
Plaintiffs allege that the State’s laws deny them equal treatment under the Equal
Case 2:12-cv-00578-RCJ -PAL Document 85 Filed 09/10/12 Page 2 of 18