Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out 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
3:14-cv-00058 #38

3:14-cv-00058 #38

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 38 - Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Doc 38 - Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 23, 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

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION  JANET E. JORGENSEN and CYNTHIA A. PHILLIPS, a married couple, Plaintiffs,
versus 
 MICHAEL MONTPLAISIR, in his official capacity as County Auditor of Cass County, North Dakota,  WAYNE STENEHJEM, in his official capacity as Attorney General of North Dakota, RYAN RAUSCHENBERGER, in his official capacity as Tax Commissioner of North Dakota, and  JACK DALRYMPLE, in his official capacity as Governor of North Dakota, Defendants. CASE NO. 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK
PLAINTIFFS’
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
 TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIO
N TO DISMISS
Case 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK Document 38 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 37
 
 
i
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... i  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1  ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 2 I.
 
Defendants’ Argument Is Premised on an Erroneous View of
Federalism and Caselaw that Has Been Superseded By Supreme Court  Jurisprudence. ............................................................................................................ 2  A.
 
North Dakota’s Marriage Laws Must Respect
 Jan and Cindy 
s Individual Constitutional Rights of Equal Protection and Due Process. ........................................................................................................ 2 B.
 
Section 2 of DOMA Does Not Provide a Legitimate Basis for Otherwise Constitutionally Invalid State Laws. ..................................... 5 C.
 
 The Language Cited by Defendants from
Citizens v. Bruning
Is Dicta and Has Been Superseded by the Decision in
Windsor.
 .............. 6 D.
 
 The Summary Dismissal in
Baker v. Nelson
Is Also Not Controlling in This Case and Has Been Superseded By More Recent Developments. .............................................................................. 8 II.
 
 Jan and Cindy Seek the Same Fundamental Right to Marital Recognition  As All Other North Dakotans. ............................................................................ 10  A.
 
Defendants Err in Attempting to Reframe the Fundamental
Right Asserted as a “New” Right to Marry Someone of the Same
Sex. ............................................................................................................. 10 B.
 
Defendants Misapprehend the Role of History when Considering the Scope of Fundamental Rights. .................................. 11 III.
 
North Dakota’s Marriage Ban Cannot Survive Any Level of Judicial
Scrutiny. .................................................................................................................. 15  A.
 
Defendants Urge an Erroneous Application of Rational Basis Review. ...................................................................................................... 16 B.
 
 There Is No Rational Relationship Between North Dakota’s
Marriage Ban and Encouraging Unintended Children to be Raised by Married Couples. .................................................................... 18
Case 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK Document 38 Filed 08/22/14 Page 2 of 37
 
 
ii
 
C.
 
 The North Dakota Legislature Cannot Rationally Believe It Is Preferable for Children to be Raised by a Different-sex Couple. ....................................................................................................... 20 D.
 
 Any Hypothetical Interest In “Proceeding With Caution” Before  Altering The “Traditional Definition of Marriage” Cannot
Sustain the Marriage Ban. ....................................................................... 21 IV.
 
 The North Dakota Marriage Ban Discriminates on the Basis of Sex. ........... 25 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................... 29
Case 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK Document 38 Filed 08/22/14 Page 3 of 37

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)//-->