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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hollingsworth v. Perry

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by Cato Institute
The idea of equality under the law dates back to the foundations of democracy and the ancient Greek word "isonomia." "Equal justice under law" remains so essential today that it is engraved in the cornice of the Supreme Court building. In 1868, Congress and the states codified this important ideal into the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment plainly show, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to all persons — regardless of race, sex, or any other group characteristics — equality under the law, including the legal right to marry the person of one's choosing. In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, restricting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples only and reversing a California Supreme Court ruling that had authorized same-sex marriage. Both the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, for reasons ranging from the violation of a fundamental right to the impropriety of removing rights/benefits once granted. With the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Cato Institute has joined the Constitutional Accountability Center on an amicus brief that focuses on supporting marriage equality under the Equal Protection Clause. Our brief explains that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not exclusively to address the disparaged rights of former slaves but, as the historical record shows, was intended to be universal in its protection of "any person" within U.S. jurisdiction. The broad and sweeping guarantee of legal equality was understood at the time to secure and protect the equal rights of all individuals, so as to prohibit arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood state-sanctioned marriage to be a personal, individual right that must be made available on an equal basis to all. Moreover, the Constitution also protects fundamental rights against state infringement under the substantive liberty provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Decades of Supreme Court cases protecting the equal right to marry — without regard to race, being behind on child support payments, or even imprisonment — have been rooted in both the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee of equality under the law and the Fourteenth Amendment's broader liberty protections, which converge in securing for all persons an equal right to marry. Prop 8 denies gays and lesbians the liberty to marry the person of their own choosing, places a badge of inferiority on same-sex couples' loving relationships and family life (with the full authority of the state behind it), and perpetrates an impermissible injury to these individuals' personal dignity. It thus directly subverts the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, and is an affront to the inalienable right to pursue one's own happiness that has guided our nation since its founding. We urge the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8 as a violation of the foundational guarantee that all persons shall have equality under the law.
The idea of equality under the law dates back to the foundations of democracy and the ancient Greek word "isonomia." "Equal justice under law" remains so essential today that it is engraved in the cornice of the Supreme Court building. In 1868, Congress and the states codified this important ideal into the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment plainly show, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to all persons — regardless of race, sex, or any other group characteristics — equality under the law, including the legal right to marry the person of one's choosing. In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, restricting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples only and reversing a California Supreme Court ruling that had authorized same-sex marriage. Both the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, for reasons ranging from the violation of a fundamental right to the impropriety of removing rights/benefits once granted. With the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Cato Institute has joined the Constitutional Accountability Center on an amicus brief that focuses on supporting marriage equality under the Equal Protection Clause. Our brief explains that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not exclusively to address the disparaged rights of former slaves but, as the historical record shows, was intended to be universal in its protection of "any person" within U.S. jurisdiction. The broad and sweeping guarantee of legal equality was understood at the time to secure and protect the equal rights of all individuals, so as to prohibit arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood state-sanctioned marriage to be a personal, individual right that must be made available on an equal basis to all. Moreover, the Constitution also protects fundamental rights against state infringement under the substantive liberty provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Decades of Supreme Court cases protecting the equal right to marry — without regard to race, being behind on child support payments, or even imprisonment — have been rooted in both the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee of equality under the law and the Fourteenth Amendment's broader liberty protections, which converge in securing for all persons an equal right to marry. Prop 8 denies gays and lesbians the liberty to marry the person of their own choosing, places a badge of inferiority on same-sex couples' loving relationships and family life (with the full authority of the state behind it), and perpetrates an impermissible injury to these individuals' personal dignity. It thus directly subverts the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, and is an affront to the inalienable right to pursue one's own happiness that has guided our nation since its founding. We urge the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8 as a violation of the foundational guarantee that all persons shall have equality under the law.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Cato Institute on May 08, 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

05/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-144
 
In The
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 
D
ENNIS
H
OLLINGSWORTH
,
ET AL
.,
 Petitioners,v.
RISTIN
M.
 
P
ERRY 
,
ET AL
.,
 Respondents.On Writ Of Certiorari To The United StatesCourt Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
BRIEF OF THE CATO INSTITUTE ANDCONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITYCENTER AS
 AMICI CURIAE 
 IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
 
D
OUGLAS
T.
 
ENDALL
R
OBERT
 A.
 
L
EVY 
 E
LIZABETH
B.
 
W
 YDRA 
 
I
LYA 
S
HAPIRO
 
Counsel of Record
J
 AMES
R.
 
S
CHINDLER
 
D
 AVID
H. G
 ANS
S
OPHIE
J.
 
M.
 
C
OLE
 J
UDITH
E.
 
S
CHAEFFER
CATO
 
INSTITUTECONSTITUTIONAL
 
1000
 
Mass. Ave., NW ACCOUNTABILITY 
 
Washington, D.C. 20001CENTER
 
(202) 842-02001200 18th St., NW, Ste 501 ishapiro@cato.orgWashington, D.C. 20036(202) 296-6889elizabeth@theusconstitution.org
 
Counsel for
 Amici Curiae
 
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................. iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ iiINTEREST OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
................................ 1INTRODUCTION ANDSUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................ 4I. The Text Of The Equal Protection ClauseUnambiguously Protects All Persons From Arbitrary And Invidious Discrimination... ........... 4II. The Original Meaning Of The Equal ProtectionClause Confirms That Its Guarantee Of EqualRights And Equality Under The Law AppliesBroadly To All Persons .. ..................................... 10III.The Equal Protection Clause Guarantees AllPersons An Equal Right To Marry The Person Of Their Choice ........................................................ 15IV.Proposition 8’s Infringement Of The Right ToMarry Violates The Equal Protection Clause’sGuarantee That All Persons Have Equal Rights And Equality Under The Law ............................. 21CONCLUSION .......................................................... 26
 
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
 Barbier v. Connolly
,113 U.S. 27 (1885) ................................................ 13
 Bd. of County Comm’rs, Waubunsee County, Kan. v. Umbehr
,518 U.S. 668 (1996) ........................................ 22, 23
 Boddie v. Connecticut
,401 U.S. 371 (1971) .......................................... 3, 20
 Bowers v. Hardwick
,478 U.S. 186 (1986) .............................................. 22
Civil Rights Cases
,109 U.S. 3 (1883) .............................................. 5, 13
 Dred Scott v. Sandford
,60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) ................................. 6
Goodridge v. Dep’t of Public Health,
 440 Mass. 309 (Mass. 2003) .......................... 25, 26
Heller v. Doe
,509 U.S. 312 (1993) ............................................. 22
Hernandez v. Robles,
 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) .................................... 25
Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan
,12 F. Cas. 252 (C.C.D. Cal. 1879 ................... 13, 14

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)//-->