Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Family Research Council (FRC) amicus curiae brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8)

Family Research Council (FRC) amicus curiae brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17|Likes:
Published by Thom Watson
January 2013 amicus Curiae brief filed in the Prop 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry) by the FRC
January 2013 amicus Curiae brief filed in the Prop 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry) by the FRC

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Thom Watson on Jan 28, 2013
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

01/29/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-144 _________________________________________________  _________________________________________________ 
In theSupreme Court of the United States
Dennis Hollingsworth,
et al.
,
 Petitioners
,vs.Kristin M Perry,
et al.
,
Respondents
.On Writ of 
Certiorari
to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit _________________________________________________  _________________________________________________ 
Brief 
 Amicus Curiae
of the Family ResearchCouncil in Support of Petitioners Addressingthe Merits and Supporting Reversal
Paul Benjamin Linton Christopher M. Gacek
Counsel of Record
Family Research CouncilSpecial Counsel 801 G. Street, N.W.Thomas More Society Washington, D.C. 20001921 Keystone Avenue (202) 393-2100 (tel)Northbrook, Illinois 60062PBLCONLAW@AOL.COM(847) 291-3848 (tel)Thomas BrejchaPresident & Chief CounselThomas More Society29 S. La Salle StreetChicago, Illinois 60603(312) 782-1680 (tel)
 __________________ 
 _______________________________  _________________________________________________ 
 
T
 ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
T
 ABLE OF
 A 
UTHORITIES
.......................iiiI
NTEREST OF
 A
MICUS 
URIAE 
...................1S
UMMARY OF
 A 
RGUMENT
......................3 A 
RGUMENT
.................................6I.PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT INTERFEREWITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TOMARRY PROTECTED BY THE DUEPROCESS CLAUSE....................6II.PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOTDISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF SEXIN VIOLATION OF THE EQUALPROTECTION CLAUSE ...............12II.PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOTDISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OFSEXUAL ORIENTATION IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUALPROTECTION CLAUSE...............19
 Proposition 8, On Its Face, Does Not Discriminate On The Basis Of SexualOrientation
..........................19(Table of Contents Continued on Next Page)
 
T
 ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
(continued)
 Proposition 8's Disparate Impact OnHomosexuals Who Wish To Marry PersonsOf The Same Sex Is Not ConstitutionallyCognizable In The Absence Of Any EvidenceThat In Adopting Proposition 8, The PeopleOf California Had The Purpose Or IntentTo Discriminate Against Homosexuals
....21
 Assuming That Proposition 8 Classifies OnThe Basis Of Sexual Orientation
,
SuchClassification Is Subject To Rational BasisReview
..............................24C
ONCLUSION
...............................35ii

You're Reading a Free Preview

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