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 or section
Like this
13Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Perry Respondents' Merits Brief

Perry Respondents' Merits Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20,948 |Likes:
Published by AmericanEqualRights
AFER’s attorneys, led by distinguished co-counsel Ted Olson and David Boies, have filed our powerful brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is our one and only brief that we will file with the Court. It is our chance to explain to the Justices that marriage equality is at the heart of our generation’s search for greater freedom and a basic American value, deeply rooted in our constitutional tradition.
AFER’s attorneys, led by distinguished co-counsel Ted Olson and David Boies, have filed our powerful brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is our one and only brief that we will file with the Court. It is our chance to explain to the Justices that marriage equality is at the heart of our generation’s search for greater freedom and a basic American value, deeply rooted in our constitutional tradition.

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: AmericanEqualRights on Feb 21, 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

02/26/2013

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 Writ Of CertiorariTo The United States Court Of AppealsFor The Ninth Circuit
_______________
 
BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS
_______________
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) 229-7000T
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
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1STATEMENT .............................................................. 4
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................... 13 ARGUMENT ............................................................. 16
 
I. P
ROPONENTS
L
 ACK 
S
TANDING
T
O
 A 
PPEAL
.......................................................... 16II. P
ROPOSITION
8,
 
B
 Y 
D
ENYING
G
 AY 
M
EN
 A 
ND
L
ESBIANS
T
HE
R
IGHT
T
O
M
 ARRY 
,
 
 V 
IOLATES
D
UE
P
ROCESS
................................ 19 A.
 
The Right To Marry IsFundamental For All People ................. 21B.
 
The Trial Record And FactualFindings Establish That“Responsible Procreation” Is NotThe Defining Purpose Of Marriage ...... 25III. P
ROPOSITION
8,
 
B
 Y 
D
ENYING
G
 AY 
M
EN
 A 
ND
L
ESBIANS
T
HE
R
IGHT
T
O
M
 ARRY 
,
 
 V 
IOLATES
E
QUAL
P
ROTECTION
...................... 27 A.
 
Discrimination On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation TriggersHeightened Scrutiny ............................. 28B.
 
Laws That Prohibit Gay Men AndLesbians From Marrying CannotSurvive Rational Basis Review,Let Alone Heightened Scrutiny ............ 36C.
 
Proposition 8 Is UnconstitutionalBecause It Was Motivated By A Bare Desire To Make Gay Men And Lesbians Unequal To Every-one Else .................................................. 51CONCLUSION .......................................................... 53
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)CASES
 
 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
,515 U.S. 200 (1995) .............................................. 29
 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona
,520 U.S. 43 (1997) .............................. 11, 13, 16, 17
 Baker v. Nelson
,409 U.S. 810 (1972) .............................................. 20
 Baldwin v. Reese
,541 U.S. 27 (2004) ................................................ 18
 Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett
,531 U.S. 356 (2001) ........................................ 42, 53
 Boddie v. Connecticut
,401 U.S. 371 (1971) ........................................ 20, 22
 Bowen v. Gilliard
,483 U.S. 587 (1987) .............................................. 29
 Bowers v. Hardwick
,478 U.S. 186 (1986) .............................................. 51
 Brown v. Bd. of Educ.
,349 U.S. 294 (1955) .............................................. 48
 Brown v. Bd. of Educ.
,347 U.S. 483 (1954) .......................................... 1, 38
 Buchanan v. Warley
,245 U.S. 60 (1917) ................................................ 49
Califano v. Yamasaki
,442 U.S. 682 (1979) .............................................. 18
Carey v. Population Servs. Int’l
,431 U.S. 678 (1977) ............................ 20, 21, 23, 27

Activity (13)

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

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)//-->