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
14-3464 #21

14-3464 #21

Ratings: (0)|Views: 32 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 21 - Himes's Opening Brief
Doc 21 - Himes's Opening Brief

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jun 11, 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

08/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
No. 14-3464 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BRITTANI HENRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LANCE D. HIMES, Defendant-Appellant. : : : : : : : : : On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division District Court Case No. 14-cv-0129
BRIEF OF APPELLANT LANCE D. HIMES, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MICHAEL DEWINE (0009181) Ohio Attorney General ERIC E. MURPHY* (0083284) State Solicitor *
Counsel of Record
BRIDGET E. COONTZ (0072919) Assistant Attorney General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-466-8980; 614-466-5087 fax eric.murphy@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Counsel for Lance D. Himes,  Interim Director of the Ohio  Department of Health
Case: 14-3464 Document: 21 Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 1
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
 
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .............................................. xi
 
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1
 
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 1
 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 5
 
A.
 
Ohio’s lawmakers and citizens both reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage in Ohio ............................................................... 5
 
B.
 
Plaintiffs, four same-sex couples, an adopted child, and an adoption agency, filed suit seeking to have both same-sex partners listed on Ohio birth certificates ............................................................. 8
 
C.
 
The district court granted a permanent injunction enjoining the State from following Ohio law prohibiting it from recognizing out-of-state, same-sex marriages ......................................................... 10
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 16
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 18
 
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 18
 
I.
 
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED AT THE OUTSET BY TRANSFORMING THE NARROW AS-APPLIED COMPLAINT INTO A BROAD FACIAL ATTACK .......................................................... 19
 
II.
 
AS IN
OBERGEFELL
, THE DISTRICT COURT’S EQUAL-PROTECTION AND DUE-PROCESS HOLDINGS CONFLICT WITH BINDING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT ............................................ 24
 
Case: 14-3464 Document: 21 Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 2
 
ii III.
 
AS IN
OBERGEFELL
, THE DISTRICT COURT WRONGLY INVOKED SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ............................................. 27
 
A.
 
Plaintiffs have no fundamental right to same-sex marriage ................ 28
 
B.
 
Plaintiffs have no fundamental right to same-sex-marriage recognition ........................................................................................... 32
 
C.
 
Ohio’s decision to retain the traditional definition of marriage does not implicate any fundamental parental rights ............................ 35
 
IV.
 
AS IN
OBERGEFELL
, THE DISTRICT COURT WRONGLY HELD THAT OHIO’S DECISION TO RETAIN TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE VIOLATED EQUAL PROTECTION .................................... 37
 
A.
 
Rational-basis review applies to Ohio’s marriage laws ...................... 38
 
1.
 
Binding precedent requires this Court to apply rational- basis review ............................................................................... 38
 
2.
 
Even apart from precedent, heightened scrutiny is not  proper ........................................................................................ 41
 
B.
 
Ohio’s marriage laws survive rational-basis review ........................... 42
 
V.
 
OHIO’S DECISION TO RECOGNIZE ONLY TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AS APPLIED TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS ... 50
 
A.
 
Section 1983 does not provide a vehicle for enforcing the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause ............................... 50
 
B.
 
Even if § 1983 could enforce the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Ohio’s decision not to put both of the New York Plaintiffs’ names on an amended birth certificate did not violate the clause .................. 56
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 59
 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
DESIGNATION OF DISTRICT COURT RECORD
 
Case: 14-3464 Document: 21 Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 3

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)//-->