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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-17668 #140

12-17668 #140

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 140 - Amicus brief of Dr. Paul McHugh in support of State of Nevada
Doc 140 - Amicus brief of Dr. Paul McHugh in support of State of Nevada

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 03, 2014
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

02/04/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
A
PPEAL
N
O
.
 
12-17668 U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS
 F
OR
T
HE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
  __________________________________________
B
EVERLY
S
EVCIK 
, et al.
 Plaintiffs-Appellants
, v. B
RIAN
S
ANDOVAL
, et al.
 Defendants-Appellees.
 
 __________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Civil Case No. 2:12-cv-00578-RCJ-PAL (Judge Robert C. Jones)
  __________________________________________ B
RIEF OF
A
MICUS
C
URIAE
D
.
 
P
AUL
M
C
H
UGH IN
S
UPPORT OF
D
EFENDANTS
-A
PPELLEES AND
A
FFIRMANCE
  __________________________________________ 
 
Gerard V. Bradley  N
OTRE
D
AME
L
AW
S
CHOOL
 3156 Eck Hall  Notre Dame, IN 46556 Tel: (574) 631-8385 Email: Gerard.V.Bradley.16@nd.edu
Counsel for Dr. Paul McHugh
 
Case: 12-17668 01/28/2014 ID: 8956177 DktEntry: 140 Page: 1 of 43
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
 
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ......................................................................... 1
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 1
 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
 
I.
 
Sexual Orientation Does Not Define a Discrete and Insular Minority. .......... 4
 
A.
 
Threshold Questions Prevent this Court from Defining a Class Based on Sexual Orientation with Sufficient Clarity. ........................... 4
 
B.
 
Social Science Experts Raise Serious Doubts About the Definability of Sexual Orientation. ..................................................... 10
 
II.
 
Sexual Orientation is Not an Immutable Characteristic. ............................... 16
 
A.
 
Immutability Means Solely an Accident of Birth. .............................. 16
 
B.
 
Sexual Orientation Is Not
Solely
an Accident of Birth. ...................... 17
 
C.
 
Sexual Orientation Can and Often Does Change Over Time. ............ 22
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 29
 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULES 29-2(D) AND 32(A)(7)(B) .................................................................................................... 32
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 33
 
Case: 12-17668 01/28/2014 ID: 8956177 DktEntry: 140 Page: 2 of 43
 
 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases
 Ben-Shalom v. Marsh
, 881 F. 2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 4
  Bowers v. Hardwick 
, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)......................................................................................... 5
  Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Ford 
, 504 U.S. 648 (1992)......................................................................................... 7
 Citizens for Equal Prot. v. Bruning 
, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 4
 City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr.
, 473 U.S. 432 (1985)................................................................................. 7, 8, 9
  Equal. Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati
, 128 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 4
  Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.
, 324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 5, 6
  Frontiero v. Richardson
, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)................................................................................... 6, 17
 Gomez v. Perez 
, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)....................................................................................... 16
 Graham v. Richardson
, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)....................................................................................... 16
  Hernandez-Montiel v. INS 
, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................... 6
  High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Office
, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................... 5, 6
 
Case: 12-17668 01/28/2014 ID: 8956177 DktEntry: 140 Page: 3 of 43

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)//-->