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
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PerryvSchwarzeneggerProp8SummaryJudgment

PerryvSchwarzeneggerProp8SummaryJudgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 528 |Likes:
Published by iamdpunisher
Perry, et al. vs. Schwarzenegger, et al. - ProtectMarriage.com/Yes on 8 Motion for Summary Judgment
Perry, et al. vs. Schwarzenegger, et al. - ProtectMarriage.com/Yes on 8 Motion for Summary Judgment

More info:

Published by: iamdpunisher on Sep 12, 2009
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

12/21/2012

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
COOPER AND KIRK, PLLCCharles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Peter A. Patterson (Ohio Bar No. 0080840)*
 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNOAndrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUNDBrian W. Raum
 
(NY Bar No.
 
2856102)*
braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028A
TTORNEYS FOR
D
EFENDANT
-I
NTERVENORS
D
ENNIS
H
OLLINGSWORTH
,G
AIL
J.
 
K
NIGHT
,
 
M
ARTIN
F.
 
G
UTIERREZ
,
 
H
AK
-S
HING
W
ILLIAM
T
AM
,M
ARK
A.
 
J
ANSSON
, and P
ROTECT
M
ARRIAGE
.
COM
 
Y
ES ON
8,
 
AP
ROJECT OF
C
ALIFORNIA
R
ENEWAL
 *
 
Admitted
 pro hac vice
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J.ZARRILLO,Plaintiffs,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his officialcapacity as Governor of California; EDMUNDG. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity asAttorney General of California; MARK B.HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health andState Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTESCOTT, in her official capacity as DeputyDirector of Health Information & StrategicCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ANDMEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT
 Date: October 14, 2009Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. WalkerLocation: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Planning for the California Department of PublicHealth; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his officialcapacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his officialcapacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk forthe County of Los Angeles,Defendants,andPROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIARENEWAL,Defendant-Intervenors. Additional Counsel for Defendant-IntervenorsALLIANCE DEFENSE FUNDTimothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
 jlorence@telladf.org
Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
animocks@telladf.org
801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622*
 
Admitted
 pro hac vice
 
 
 
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................................................. 1INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2FACTS ................................................................................................................................................. 8ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 11I. The Supreme Court’s Decision in
 Baker 
Controls the Outcome of this Case. ...................... 13A.
 Baker 
Is Dispositive Of The Issues Presented In This Case. ..................................... 13B.
 Baker 
Retains Its Controlling Force. ........................................................................ 15II. There is no Fundamental Right to Same-Sex Marriage under the Due Process Clause ........ 18A.
 
Washington v. Glucksberg
Precludes Judicial Recognition Of A Fundamental Rightto Same-Sex Marriage. .............................................................................................. 181.
 
A right to same-sex marriage has no roots in this Nation’s history andtradition .......................................................................................................... 192. Same-sex marriage is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty ............. 213. The contemporary understanding of marriage remains unchanged ............... 22B. The Supreme Court Decisions Recognizing A “Fundamental Right To Marry”Confirm That There Is No Fundamental Right To Same-Sex Marriage ................... 23C.
 Loving v. Virginia
Does Not Support A Right To Same-Sex Marriage .................... 24D.
 Lawrence v. Texas
Does Not Support A Right To Same-Sex Marriage ................... 27E. Adopting Plaintiffs’ View Of The Fundamental Right To Marry Would Have Far-Ranging Consequences. ............................................................................................. 31III. Proposition 8 Is Not Subject To Heightened Scrutiny Under The Equal Protection Clause. 34A. Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples Are Not Similarly Situated With RespectTo Marriage. .............................................................................................................. 35B. Sexual Orientation Is Not A Suspect Or Quasi-Suspect Classification Under TheEqual Protection Clause. ............................................................................................ 361. Controlling precedent establishes that laws that discriminate on thebasis of sexual orientation are subject only to rational basis review. ............ 36

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Patrick Busch liked this
leenathanael liked this
iamdpunisher 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)//-->