Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out 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
13-4178 Amicus Brierf of Eagle Forum

13-4178 Amicus Brierf of Eagle Forum

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
[10148531] Amicus Brief of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in support of Defendants
[10148531] Amicus Brief of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in support of Defendants

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 11, 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

07/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 No. 13-4178
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
DEREK KITCHEN,
 ET AL
.
 
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. GARY R. HERBERT,
 IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
G
OVERNOR OF
U
TAH
,
 
 ET AL
.,
 
 Defendants-Appellants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CIVIL ACTION  NO. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS, HON. ROBERT J. SHELBY
BRIEF FOR
 AMICUS CURIAE
 EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION & LEGAL DEFENSE FUND IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL
Lawrence J. Joseph, D.C. Bar #464777 1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-355-9452 Fax: 202-318-2254 Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com Counsel for
 Amicus Curiae
 Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019200455 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 1
Docket Reference Number: [10148531]
 
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the F
EDERAL
ULES OF
A
PPELLATE
P
ROCEDURE
,
amicus curiae
Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund makes the following disclosures: 1)For non-governmental corporate parties please list all parentcorporations: None. 2)For non-governmental corporate parties please list all publicly helcompanies that hold 10% or more of the party
s stock: None. Dated: February 10, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Lawrence J. Joseph, D.C. Bar #464777 1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-355-9452 Fax: 202-318-2254 Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Eagle Forum  Education & Legal Defense Fund
/s/ Lawrence J. Joseph
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019200455 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 2
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Corporate Disclosure Statement
......................................................................... i
 
Table of Contents
..................................................................................................ii
 
Table of Authorities
..............................................................................................iv
 
Identity, Interest and Authority to File
........................................................... 1
 
Statement of the Case
........................................................................................... 1
 
Statement of Facts
................................................................................................. 3
 
Summary of Argument
......................................................................................... 3
 
 Argument
................................................................................................................. 4
 
I.
 
 Amendment 3 Satisfies the Rational-Basis Test
................................. 4
 
 A.
 
Plaintiffs Are Not Similarly Situated with Married Opposite-Sex Couples, and Utah Has No Discriminatory Purpose
................................................................... 5
 
B.
 
The Rational-Basis Test Is Flexible for Defendants, Demanding for Most Plaintiffs, and Impossible for these Plaintiffs to Satisfy
..................................... 7
 
C.
 
Windsor
 Does Not Support Plaintiffs Here
...............................10
 
1.
 Windsor
 Applied a Truncated Form of Rational-Basis Review to Conclude thatDOMA §3’s Principal Purpose Was toDemean Same-Sex Marriages
............................................11
 
2.Amendment 3 Does Not Disparage orDemean Same-Sex Couples as DOMA §3Did under
Windsor
...............................................................14
 
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019200455 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 3

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)//-->