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 or section
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FILED 6th Cir Brief

FILED 6th Cir Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by josephlord

More info:

Published by: josephlord on Jun 10, 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

06/10/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 NO. 14-5291
 _________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
 _________________________________________
GOVERNOR STEVE BESHEAR APPELLANT vs. GREGORY BOURKE, et al. APPELLEES
 _________________________________________
On Appeal From The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky Judge John G. Heyburn CASE NO. 3:13-CV-750-JGH
  _________________________________________ BRIEF FOR APPELLEES  _________________________________________
Shannon R. Fauver Dawn R. Elliott F
AUVER
L
AW
O
FFICE
,
 
PLLC 1752 Frankfort Avenue Louisville, KY 40206 (502) 569-7710
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Daniel J. Canon Laura E. Landenwich L. Joe Dunman C
LAY
D
ANIEL
W
ALTON
&
 
A
DAMS
,
 
PLC 101 Meidinger Tower 462 S. Fourth Street Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 561-2005
Counsel for Plaintiffs
 
Case: 14-5291 Document: 38 Filed: 06/09/2014 Page: 1
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iii
 
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................. 1
 
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................... 1
 
ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................................................. 1
 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................... 4
 
I.
 
The History of Kentucky’s Mar 
riage Ban. .......................................................... 4
 
II.
 
The Case Below. .................................................................................................. 7
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................11
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................11
 
ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................14
 
I.
 
 Baker v. Nelson
 Is Not Binding Precedent. .......................................................14
 
II.
 
Kentucky’s Marriage Laws Violate Equal Protection.
 ......................................17
 
A.
 
Same-Sex Couples are Similarly Situated to Opposite-Sex Couples. ........................................................................................ 18
 
B.
 
Kentucky’s Discriminatory Laws are Subject to
Heightened Scrutiny. ........................................................................... 22
 
1.
 
Kentucky’s Marriage Laws Burden the
Fundamental Right to Marriage. ............................................... 23
 
2.
 
Kentucky’s Marriage Laws Target a Su
spect Class. ................. 27
 
C.
 
Kentucky’s Marriage Laws Cannot Withstand Rational
Basis Review. ...................................................................................... 32
 
1.
 
Procreation is Not a Legitimate State Interest. ......................... 34
 
Case: 14-5291 Document: 38 Filed: 06/09/2014 Page: 2
 
2.
 
Banning Same-
Sex Couples From the State’s
Marriage System is Not Rationally Related to Promoting Procreation .............................................................. 37
 
3.
 
 No Other Justification for Kentucky’s Marriage
Laws Survives Rational Basis Review. ..................................... 40
 
a.
 
Tradition Alone Cannot Form a Rational Basis. ............................................................................... 40
 
 b.
 
Federalism and State Sovereignty do Not Form a Rational Basis. .................................................... 43
 
c. Optimal Child-Rearing is Not a Rational Basis. ............................................................................... 46
 
D.
 
Kentucky’s Marriage Laws Were Motivated by Animus.
 ................... 48
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................53
 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................55
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................55
 
Case: 14-5291 Document: 38 Filed: 06/09/2014 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)//-->