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
2:13-cv000395 #59

2:13-cv000395 #59

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 59 - Plaintiffs' Opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment
Doc 59 - Plaintiffs' Opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Oct 25, 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

05/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA—NORFOLK DIVISION
TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC,TONY C. LONDON,CAROL SCHALL, andMARY TOWNLEY,Plaintiffs,v. CASE NO. 2:13-cv-395JANET M. RAINEY, in her officialcapacity as State Registrar of Vital Records, andGEORGE E. SCHAEFER, III, in his officialcapacity as the Clerk of Courtfor Norfolk Circuit Court,Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 59 Filed 10/24/13 Page 1 of 29 PageID# 455
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageiINTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
 
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENTS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ......................... 3
 
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
 
I.
 
 Baker v. Nelson
Does Not Control This Case. ................................................................ 3
 
II.
 
This Court Should Apply Heightened Scrutiny And Strike Down Virginia’sMarriage Prohibition As Unconstitutional. ..................................................................... 5
 
A.
 
This Court Should Apply Heightened Scrutiny Because Virginia’s MarriageProhibition Prevents Gay Men And Lesbians From Exercising Their Fundamental Right To Marry. .................................................................................... 5
 
B.
 
This Court Should Apply Heightened Scrutiny Because Virginia’s MarriageProhibition Discriminates On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation. ............................... 8
 
C.
 
This Court Should Apply Heightened Scrutiny Because Virginia’s MarriageProhibition Discriminates On The Basis Of Sex. ..................................................... 11
 
III.
 
Virginia’s Marriage Prohibition Fails Even Rational Basis Review. ........................... 12
 
A.
 
Excluding Gay Men And Lesbians From Marriage Does Not PromoteResponsible Procreation. ........................................................................................... 12
 
B.
 
Excluding Gay Men And Lesbians From Marriage Does Not Foster Biological Parenting. ................................................................................................. 15
 
C.
 
Excluding Gay Men And Lesbians From Marriage Cannot Be Justified ByHistory Or Tradition. ................................................................................................ 16
 
D.
 
Excluding Gay Men And Lesbians From Marriage Cannot Be Justified BySection 2 Of DOMA. ................................................................................................ 17
 
E.
 
Enacting A Constitutional Amendment To Exclude Gay Men And LesbiansFrom Marriage Cannot Be Justified By A Desire To Avoid Judicial Review. ......... 17
 
F.
 
The Purpose And Effect Of Virginia’s Marriage Prohibition Is To DisparageAnd Injure Gay Men And Lesbians. ......................................................................... 18
 
IV.
 
Plaintiffs Have Standing To Challenge Virginia’s Marriage Prohibition. .................... 19
 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 20
 
Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 59 Filed 10/24/13 Page 2 of 29 PageID# 456
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)ii
Cases
 
 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
,515 U.S. 200 (1995) .................................................................................................................. 11
 Alexander v. Kuykendall 
,192 Va. 8 (1951) ......................................................................................................................... 7
 Baker v. Nelson
,191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) ........................................................................................... 3, 4, 5
 Bartlett v. Bowen
,816 F.2d 695 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................. 18
 Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett 
,531 U.S. 356 (2001) .................................................................................................................. 14
 Boddie v. Connecticut 
,401 U.S. 371 (1971) .................................................................................................................. 13
 Bowen v. Gilliard 
,483 U.S. 587 (1987) .................................................................................................................. 10
 Brown v. Bd. of Educ
.,347 U.S. 483 (1954) .................................................................................................................... 1
Carey v. Population Servs. Int’l 
,431 U.S. 678 (1977) .................................................................................................................... 6
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.
,473 U.S. 432 (1985) ...................................................................................................... 10, 11, 12
Craig v. Boren
,429 U.S. 190 (1976) .................................................................................................................... 4
 Faust v. S.C. State Highway Dep’t 
,721 F.2d 934 (4th Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................... 10
 Frontiero v. Richardson
,411 U.S. 677 (1973) .............................................................................................................. 4, 11
Garden State Equal. v. Dow
,2012 WL 540608 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Feb. 21, 2012) ...................................................... 4
Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
824 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................................ 9
Griswold v. Connecticut 
,381 U.S. 479 (1965) ........................................................................................................ 8, 13, 17
 Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections
,383 U.S. 663 (1966) .................................................................................................................... 6
 Heller v. Doe
,509 U.S. 312 (1993) ........................................................................................................ 9, 12, 16
Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 59 Filed 10/24/13 Page 3 of 29 PageID# 457

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)//-->