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
2Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
amicus32howard(1)

amicus32howard(1)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 171 |Likes:
Published by oblog
Prop 8 Amicus Brief Howard University
Prop 8 Amicus Brief Howard University

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: oblog on Mar 22, 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

11/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 10-16696
Oral Argument December 6, 2010
 U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS
 F
OR THE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
 
KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
 Defendants
.
 
On Appeal from the United States District CourtNorthern District of California No. 09-CV-2292-VRWThe Honorable Vaughn R. Walker
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OFLAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC and AMERICANS UNITED FORSEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN SUPPORT OFAPPELLEES TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT
Howard University School of Law Civil Rights ClinicAderson François, Civil Rights Clinic Supervising Attorney2900 Van Ness Street, Washington, DC 20008(202) 806-8065
Fax: (202) 806-8436Americans United for Separation of Church and StateAyesha N. Khan, Legal Director518 C Street NE, Washington, DC 20002(202) 466-3234
Fax: (202) 466-2587MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLPBrad W. Seiling, Kathryn A. B. Bartow, Benjamin G. Shatz11355 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064(310) 312-4000
Fax: (310) 312-4224KEKER & VAN NEST, LLPJon B. Streeter, Susan J. Harriman, Jo W. Golub710 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94111(415) 391-5400
Fax: (415) 397-7188
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 1 of 42 ID: 7521717 DktEntry: 172
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 iSTATEMENT OF INTEREST.................................................................................1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................................................2I. MARRIAGE IS A SYMBOL OF CIVIL FREEDOM, A MARKEROF SOCIAL EQUALITY, AND A BADGE OF FULLCITIZENSHIP................................................................................................3II. LIKE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES TODAY,INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE WAS ONCE WIDELYCONSIDERED A THREAT TO SOCIAL ORDER AND THEINSTITUTIONS OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY......................................6III. LIKE SAME-SEX COUPLES TODAY, INTERRACIAL COUPLESWERE ONCE CONDEMNED AS UNNATURAL ANDPATHOLOGICAL.......................................................................................10A. Opponents Have Framed Both Interracial Relationships andSame-Sex Relationships as Purely Sexual.........................................10B. Pseudo-Scientific Arguments Were Used to Support Anti-Miscegenation Laws and are Currently Being Used to Deny theRight for Same-Sex Couples to Marry...............................................14C. Opponents of Interracial and Same-Sex Relationships HaveUsed Faulty Social Science Arguments to Pathologize SuchAttraction as an Illness.......................................................................17D. Judeo-Christian Theological Interpretations Often Have BeenInvoked to Challenge Marriage for Both Interracial and Same-Sex Couples........................................................................................19IV. LIKE SAME-SEX PARENTING TODAY, INTERRACIALPARENTING WAS ONCE CONSIDERED DAMAGING TO THEPHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN..........23CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................29
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 2 of 42 ID: 7521717 DktEntry: 172
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 
Page
 ii
CASES
 Anderson v. King County
,138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006)..............................................................................24
 Bottoms v. Bottoms
,457 S.E.2d 102 (Va. 1995).........................................................................23, 29
 Buck v. Bell
,274 U.S. 200 (1927)..........................................................................................15
Green v. State
,58 Ala. 190 (1877)..............................................................................................7
 Lofton v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Children & Family Servs.
,358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004)....................................................................24, 29
 Loving v. Virginia
,388 U.S. 1 (1967)................................................................................5, 8, 21, 24
 Naim v. Naim
,87 S.E.2d 749 (Va. 1955).................................................................................25
People v. Hall
,4 Cal. 399 (1854)..............................................................................................15
Perez v. Sharp
,198 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1948)..............................................................................15, 25
 Roe v. Roe
,
 
324 S.E.2d 691 (Va. 1985).........................................................................28, 29
Scott v. State
,39 Ga. 321 (1869).......................................................................................24, 25
State v. Gibson
,36 Ind. 389 (1871)............................................................................................20
West Chester & Phil. R.R. v. Miles
,55 Pa. 209 (1867)..............................................................................................21
Wolfe v. Georgia Ry. & Elec. Co.
,58 S.E. 899 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).......................................................................20
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 3 of 42 ID: 7521717 DktEntry: 172

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)//-->