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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Response filed by Mr. Gary R. Herbert and Sean Reyes to Plaintiffs' Rule 28(j) letter re Baskin v. Bogan.

Response filed by Mr. Gary R. Herbert and Sean Reyes to Plaintiffs' Rule 28(j) letter re Baskin v. Bogan.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 146 |Likes:
Published by Ben Winslow
Response filed by Mr. Gary R. Herbert and Sean Reyes to Plaintiffs' Rule 28(j) letter re Baskin v. Bogan. Filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as part of the Amendment 3 appeal of same-sex marriage ruling in Utah.
Response filed by Mr. Gary R. Herbert and Sean Reyes to Plaintiffs' Rule 28(j) letter re Baskin v. Bogan. Filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as part of the Amendment 3 appeal of same-sex marriage ruling in Utah.

More info:

Published by: Ben Winslow on Apr 28, 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

04/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
S
TATE
 
OF
 U
TAH
 
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 
SEAN D. REYES
 
ATTORNEY GENERAL
 
 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
S
PENCER
E.
 
 A
USTIN
 P
 ARKER
D
OUGLAS
 B
RIDGET
K.
 
R
OMANO
 B
RIAN
L.
 
T
 ARBET
 
Chief Criminal Deputy General Counsel & Chief of Staff Solicitor General Chief Civil Deputy
 April 25, 2014
Via electronic filing
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Byron White U.S. Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 Re:
 Kitchen v. Herbert,
No. 13-4178 Response to Plaintiffs’ Rule 28(j) letter re:
 Baskin
 
v. Bogan,
No. 1:14-cv-00355 (S.D. Ind. April 18, 2014) Dear Ms. Shumaker,  Although each of the statements Plaintiffs recite from
 Baskin
is incorrect,
1
 we respond here to that court’s core holding (at 7-8) that the State there (Indiana) will likely be unable to prove a “legitimate state interest” underlying its man-woman definition of marriage, including the State’s desire to maintain “social norms” that promote the well-being of children. Like the analysis of the district court in this case, the
 Baskin
court’s rejection of the State’s concern about the dilution of child-friendly social norms ignores the law’s important and well-recognized role as a “teacher” of the public.
See Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett,
531 U.S. 356, 375 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring). For example, a law protecting citizens with physical disabilities from discrimination helps create or reinforce a social norm that people should generally “accept[] persons with impairments or disabilities into the larger society.”
Id.
 Conversely, repealing or substantially weakening such a law would weaken the norm of “accepting”
1
 
 Baskin
 is also distinguishable because it was decided on a standard of review for preliminary relief which, unlike this circuit’s standard, requires simply that success on the merits be “more than negligible.”
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019239973 Date Filed: 04/25/2014 Page: 1

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)//-->