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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
GLAD Amicus Brief

GLAD Amicus Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
14-5297 #92 Amicus Brief of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees
14-5297 #92 Amicus Brief of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jun 20, 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

06/20/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 14-5297
U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS FOR THE
S
IXTH
C
IRCUIT
 
V
ALERIA
T
ANCO
,
 
et al.,
 Plaintiffs-Appellees
,
v.
W
ILLIAM
E
DWARD
“B
ILL
 
H
ASLAM
,
 
as Governor of the State of Tennessee, in his official capacity, et al.,
 Defendants-Appellants
. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,  No. 3:13-cv-01159 (Hon. Aleta Arthur Trauger)
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE
M
ARK
C.
 
F
LEMING
 F
ELICIA
H.
 
E
LLSWORTH
 W
ILMER
C
UTLER
P
ICKERING
 H
ALE AND
D
ORR LLP
 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617)
 
526-6000 June 16, 2014 P
AUL
R.Q.
 
W
OLFSON
 D
INA
B.
 
M
ISHRA
 W
ILMER
C
UTLER
P
ICKERING
 H
ALE AND
D
ORR LLP
 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663-6000 A
LAN
S
CHOENFELD
 W
ILMER
C
UTLER
P
ICKERING
 H
ALE AND
D
ORR LLP
 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street ew York, NY 10007 (212)
 
230-8800
Case: 14-5297 Document: 92 Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 1
 
6CA-18/08
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Disclosure of Corporate Affiliationsand Financial Interest
Sixth CircuitCase Number: Case Name: Name of counsel: Pursuant to 6th Cir. R. 26.1,
Name of Party 
makes the following disclosure:1.Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? If Yes, list below theidentity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the namedparty:2.Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has a financial interestin the outcome? If yes, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financialinterest:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI certify that on _____________________________________ the foregoing document was served on allparties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not,by placing a true and correct copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to their address of record.s/
This statement is filed twice: when the appeal is initially opened and later, in the principal briefs, immediately preceding the table of contents. See 6th Cir. R. 26.1 on page 2 of this form.
14-5297 Tanco v. HaslamPaul R.Q. WolfsonGay & Lesbian Advocates & DefendersNo.Not to my knowledge06/16/2014
Paul R.Q. Wolfson
- i -
 Case: 14-5297 Document: 92 Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 2
 
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST ................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .......................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4 I.
ATIONAL
-B
ASIS
EVIEW
I
S
A
 
M
EANINGFUL
C
HECK
O
 N
S
TATE
A
UTHORITY
 ...................................................................................................... 4 A. Rational-Basis Review Varies Depending On Context ........................ 4 B. Rational-Basis Review Requires A Meaningful Connection Between The State’s Classification And A Legitimate Governmental Purpose ...................................................... 13 II. T
HE
S
TATES
 
M
ARRIAGE
B
ANS
L
ACK
A
 
ATIONAL
B
ASIS
 ............................. 16 A. The States’ Invocations Of “Tradition” And “History” Are Misplaced ..................................................................................... 16 B. The States’ Marriage Bans Are Not Rationally Related To Children’s Welfare ......................................................................... 20 C. Kentucky’s Marriage Recognition Ban Is Not Rationally Related To Promoting Procreation ...................................................... 29 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 30 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case: 14-5297 Document: 92 Filed: 06/16/2014 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)//-->