Monte Neil Stewart

stewart@stm-law.com
STEWART TAYLOR & MORRIS PLLC
LAWYERS
12550 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 100
Boise, ID 83713
Telephone (208) 345-3333
Facsimile (208) 345-4461

Monte Neil Stewart
Craig G. Taylor
Thomas C. Morris
Daniel W. Bower
Gabriel M. Haws
Chad E. Bernards
Richard S. Bower
Ammon C. Taylor

May 21, 2014

Via CM/ECF Electronic Filing System

Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of the Court
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Re: Sevcik v. Sandoval, Case No. 12-17668;
Appellee Coalition for the Protection of Marriages Response to
Appellants Rule 28(j) citation of supplemental authority: Latta v.
Otter, No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD, 2014 WL 1909999 (D. Idaho May
13, 2014) (Dkt Entry: 205-1)

Dear Clerk:

As in Latta, so in this case: the core issue is whether the State has a
sufficiently good reason for preserving the man-woman marriage institution. What
qualifies as sufficiently good may vary depending on the level of judicial
scrutiny deployed: whether rational basis review, SmithKline scrutiny,
intermediate scrutiny, or, although plaintiffs here are not arguing for it, strict
scrutiny.
Both defendant Governor Otter in Latta and the Coalition in this case
(sharing some of the same counsel) made two crucial demonstrations:
First, this is a contest between two mutually exclusive and profoundly
different social institutionsman-woman marriage and genderless marriage.
Justice Alito so demonstrated in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2718-
19 (2013). Plaintiffs-Appellants cannot be married (or have their foreign
marriages recognized in) Nevada in any intelligible sense until the law mandates
genderless marriage and concomitantly outlaws all official support for the man-
woman marriage institution. When the law does that, genderless marriage will
become what marriage is for everyone. Yet for the law to do that will quite
certainly deprive society of the social benefits uniquely provided by the man-
woman marriage institution. Those benefits flow from that institutions society-
Case: 12-17668 05/21/2014 ID: 9103718 DktEntry: 207 Page: 1 of 2
Ninth Circuit Clerk
May 21, 2014
Page 2



wide recognition, teaching, and valorization of the roles of mother and father. That
broadly influential endeavor quite certainly increases the number of children likely
to know and be raised by both mother and father and decreases the number of
children likely to experience the ills of fatherlessness or motherlessness. With its
Parent A and Parent B, genderless marriage does just the opposite. Coalitions
Answering Brief at 26-51.
Second, the man-woman marriage institutions unique social benefits are of
such a value and importance that the laws sustaining that institution, like Nevadas
marriage laws challenged here, rightly withstand all constitutional attack,
regardless of the level of judicial scrutiny deployed. Coalitions Answering Brief
at 26-51, 64-67, 97; Coalitions Supplemental Answering Brief at 7-10.
I n her decision, the magistrate judge in Latta ignored entirely those two
demonstrations. Hence, the Latta decision is of no value in answering the core
issue in this case.

Respectfully submitted,


___/s/___
Monte Neil Stewart
Counsel for Appellee Coalition for the
Protection of Marriage





Case: 12-17668 05/21/2014 ID: 9103718 DktEntry: 207 Page: 2 of 2