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
14-1167 #82 - Amicus Brief NC Values Coalition; Liberty, Life, Law Foundation

14-1167 #82 - Amicus Brief NC Values Coalition; Liberty, Life, Law Foundation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 15 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 84 - Amicus Brief of North Carolina Values Coalition; Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation in support of Defendants
Doc 84 - Amicus Brief of North Carolina Values Coalition; Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation in support of Defendants

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Apr 05, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Case Nos. 14-1167(L), 14-1169, 14-1173 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT _______________________________________________________________________ TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC,
et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
; and
JOANNE HARRIS, JESSICA DUFF, CHRISTY BERGHOFF, AND VICTORIA KIDD,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
 Intervenors
, v.
GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, III,
in his official capacity as the Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court,
 Defendant-Appellant 
; and
JANET M. RAINEY,
in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records, et al.,
 
 Defendant-Appellant 
; and
MICHELE B. MCQUIGG
, in her official capacity as Prince William County Clerk of Circuit Court, et al.,
 Intervenor/Defendant-Appellant 
 
________________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,  Norfolk Division
________________________________________________________________________ Brief of
 Amici Curiae
North Carolina Values Coalition and Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation in Support of Defendant-Appellants and Reversal ________________________________________________________________________
Deborah J. Dewart Deborah J. Dewart, Attorney at Law 620 E. Sabiston Drive Swansboro, NC 28584-9674 Telephone: (910) 326-4554 debcpalaw@earthlink.net
 Attorney for Amici Curiae
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 82-1 Filed: 04/04/2014 Pg: 1 of 41
Total Pages:(1 of 42)
 
 
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FRAP RULE 26.1 and LOCAL RULE 26.1
 Amici curiae
, North Carolina Values Coalition and Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation, both nonprofit corporations, make the following disclosures: 1. Neither amicus is a publicly held corporation or other public entity. 2. Neither amicus has a parent corporation. 3. No publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity owns 10% or more of the stock of either amicus, because both are nonprofit corporation and neither has issued stock. 4. No publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. DATED: April 4, 2014 /s/Deborah J. Dewart Deborah J. Dewart Counsel for
 Amici Curiae  North Carolina Values Coalition  Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 82-1 Filed: 04/04/2014 Pg: 2 of 41
Total Pages:(2 of 42)
 
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv INTEREST OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
 .............................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .............................. 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 2 I. ADVOCATES OF MARRIAGE REDEFINITION PRESUPPOSE THE DEFINITION THEY SEEK TO ESTABLISH ..................................... 2 A. Fundamental Right Arguments Presuppose That The Word Marriage Already Encompasses Same-Sex Couples ........................... 4 B. Equal Protection Arguments Presuppose That The Word Marriage Already Encompasses Same-Sex Couples ........................... 6 II. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ARGUMENTS MUST FAIL ............................ 7 A. Plaintiffs' Proposed Definition of Marriage Is Not Deeply Rooted In American History Or Tradition ........................................... 9 B. There Is No Fundamental Right To Redefine The Word Marriage ............................................................................................. 14 III. EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENTS MUST FAIL ............................... 15 A. Earlier Equal Protection Cases Involving Marriage Did Not Redefine The Institution ..................................................................... 16 B. The State Does Not Discriminate Against Other Two-Person Relationships By Limiting Marriage To One Man And One Woman ............................................................................................... 17
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 82-1 Filed: 04/04/2014 Pg: 3 of 41
Total Pages:(3 of 42)

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)//-->