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 or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Perry: Amicus Brief of Eagle Foundation

Perry: Amicus Brief of Eagle Foundation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Hollingsworth v. Perry: Amicus Brief of Eagle Foundation Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc., in support of Prop 8 Proponents
Hollingsworth v. Perry: Amicus Brief of Eagle Foundation Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc., in support of Prop 8 Proponents

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 03, 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

07/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-144
In the Supreme Court of the United States
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON,PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL,
  Petitioners,
v.KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T.KATAMI, JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, CITY ANDCOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
BRIEF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
OF EAGLE FORUMEDUCATION & LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.,IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS IN SUPPORTOF REVERSAL
L
 AWRENCE
J.
 
J
OSEPH
 1250
 
C
ONNECTICUT
 A 
 VE
.
 
NWS
UITE
200W
 ASHINGTON
, DC 20036(202) 355-9452ljoseph@larryjoseph.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
 
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioners – the Proponents who put California’sProposition 8 before that state’s electorate – presentthe following question to the Court in their petition:Whether the Equal Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of aman and a woman?In addition, the Court directed the parties tobrief and argue the following question: whetherpetitioners have standing under Article III, §2 of theConstitution in this case?
 
 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPages
Questions Presented ................................................... i
 
Table of Contents ....................................................... ii
 
Table of Authorities ................................................... iii
 
Interest of 
 Amicus Curiae
.......................................... 1
 
Statement of the Case ................................................ 2
 
Statement of Facts ..................................................... 7
 
Summary of Argument............................................... 7
 
 Argument .................................................................... 9
 
I.
 
The Federal Constitution Does Not Provide aRight to Same-Sex Marriage ............................... 9
 
 A.
 
Proposition 8 Satisfies Equal Protection .... 10
 
B.
 
Proposition 8 Satisfies Due Process ............ 13
 
C.
 
This Court Should Affirm
 Baker
................. 15
 
1.
 
Neither
Lawrence
Nor
Romer
Overturns
 Baker
on Marriage ................................ 16
 
2.
 
The People’s Rejection of the ERA Reinforces
 Baker
................................... 17
 
II.
 
The Ninth-Circuit Panel Misapplied
Romer
..... 22
 
 A.
 
Preclusion Principles Prevent Reliance on
Marriage Cases
............................................ 23
 
B.
 
The Panel Majority’s
Romer
Rule Does Not Apply to Mere Judgments ........................... 26
 
III.
 
If the Proponents Lack Standing, Federal CourtsLack Prudential and Jurisdictional Authority toChange the Very Fabric of Society .................... 29
 
Conclusion ................................................................ 32
 

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)//-->