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
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Perry: Amicus Brief of Rev. Rick Yramategui et al.

Perry: Amicus Brief of Rev. Rick Yramategui et al.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Hollingsworth v. Perry: Amicus brief of Rev. Rick Yramategui, Rev. Herb Schmidt, and Rev. Darrell W. Yeaney in support of Plaintiffs
Hollingsworth v. Perry: Amicus brief of Rev. Rick Yramategui, Rev. Herb Schmidt, and Rev. Darrell W. Yeaney in support of Plaintiffs

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Mar 11, 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

03/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-144
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
---------------------------------DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,
 et al
.,
 Petitioners,
v.KRISTIN M. PERRY,
 et al
.,
 Respondents.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
On Writ Of Certiorari To TheUnited States Court Of AppealsFor The Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE REV. RICK YRAMATEGUI, REV. HERB SCHMIDT, ANDREV. DARRELL W. YEANEY IN SUPPORT OFRESPONDENTS’ POSITION ON THE MERITS
---------------------------------
---------------------------------W
ILLIAM
K. R
ENTZ
  Attorney at Law242 Moore St.Santa Cruz, CA 95060Tel.: 831-471-8199william.rentz@comcast.net
Counsel for Amici Curiae Rev. Rick Yramategui, Rev. Herb Schmidt, and Rev. Darrell W. Yeaney
================================================================
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
 
iTABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................... iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ivINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE.......................... 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 4II. SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX COU-PLES ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED ......... 6 A. How should the court decide whetherthe two groups are similarly situat-ed? ........................................................ 6(1) In what respect must groups besimilarly situated? .......................... 7(2) Will the similarities or differencesgovern whether to proceed to thenext steps in the analysis? ............. 10B. The Equal Protection Clause requiresthat similarities be valued based ontoday’s realities ................................... 13C. The similarity analysis should bebased on the interests and values as-serted by gays who support same-sexmarriage .............................................. 18D. The value claims in support of same-sex marriage are genuine and credi-ble ........................................................ 20
 
iiTABLE OF CONTENTS – ContinuedPageE. Similarity should be judged at a highlevel of abstraction – at the level of humanity, not gender .......................... 22F. Same-sex couples and opposite-sexcouples are similarly situated withrespect to their interest in forming afamily, and that similarity is suffi-cient to invoke further equal protec-tion analysis ........................................ 28III. THE RIGHT TO FORM A FAMILY IS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT .......................... 29IV. PROPOSITION 8 TREATS SAME-SEX  AND OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES UNE-QUALLY WITH RESPECT TO THEFUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FORM A FAMILY ..................................................... 31 V. THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT JUSTIFI-CATION FOR THE UNEQUAL TREAT-MENT ........................................................ 32 A. The inequalities in this case can be justified only by a compelling stateinterest ................................................ 32B. The objections to homosexuality har-bored by a significant section of thepopulation do not justify denying marriage equality ................................ 32C. The desire to support uniformity inthe institution of marriage does not justify denying marriage equality ....... 34

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)//-->