Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
73Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA9Doc 21

CA9Doc 21

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7,658 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Proponent's Opening Brief, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Filed Sept. 17, 2010
Proponent's Opening Brief, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Filed Sept. 17, 2010

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Sep 18, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
N
O
.
 
10-16696U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS
 F
OR
T
HE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
 
KRISTIN PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.
 Defendants
,andDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
 Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants
.Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaCivil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)
 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS’OPENING BRIEF
Andrew P. PugnoL
AW
O
FFICES OF
A
NDREW
P.
 
P
UGNO
 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100Folsom, California 95630(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 FaxBrian W. RaumJames A. CampbellA
LLIANCE
D
EFENSE
F
UND
 15100 North 90th StreetScottsdale, Arizona 85260(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 FaxCharles J. Cooper
 
David H. Thompson
 
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
 
Peter A. PattersonC
OOPER AND
K
IRK
,
 
PLLC1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax
 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com
Case: 10-16696 09/17/2010 Page: 1 of 134 ID: 7479041 DktEntry: 21
 
 
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................8STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW......................................8PERTINENT LEGAL PROVISIONS.......................................................................9STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................9STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................15SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...............................................................................16STANDARD OF REVIEW.....................................................................................18ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................19I. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION...........................................................19A. P
ROPONENTS
H
AVE
S
TANDING TO
A
PPEAL
..........................................19B. T
HE
I
MPERIAL
I
NTERVENORS HAVE
S
TANDING TO
A
PPEAL
..................24C. I
F
T
HIS
C
OURT
C
ONCLUDES
I
T
L
ACKS
J
URISDICTION
,
 
I
T
M
UST
V
ACATE THE
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
S
J
UDGMENT TO THE
E
XTENT THE
 D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
E
XCEEDED ITS
J
URISDICTION
....................................29II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S KEY “FACT” FINDINGS ARE DUE NODEFERENCE AND IN ANY EVENT ARE UNRELIABLE ANDULTIMATELY IRRELEVANT...................................................................32III. THE DISTRICT COURT’S RULING IS CONTRARY TO BINDINGPRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT AND THIS COURTAND THE UNIFORM JUDGMENT OF STATE AND FEDERALAPPELLATE COURTS ACROSS THE NATION......................................43
Case: 10-16696 09/17/2010 Page: 2 of 134 ID: 7479041 DktEntry: 21
 
 
- ii - A. T
HE
S
UPREME
C
OURT
S
D
ECISION IN
B
AKER V
.
 
N
ELSON
M
ANDATES
R
EVERSAL OF THE
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
S
R
ULING
.................44B. T
HIS
C
OURT
S
D
ECISION IN
A
DAMS V
.
 
H
OWERTON
M
ANDATES
R
EVERSAL OF THE
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
S
R
ULING
. ..................................46C. T
HE
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
S
R
ULING
I
S
C
ONTRARY TO THE
U
NANIMOUS
C
ONCLUSION OF
O
THER
A
PPELLATE
C
OURTS
A
CROSS THE
C
OUNTRY
.........................................................................46IV. PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PLAINTIFFS’FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY.....................................................47A. T
HERE
I
S
N
O
F
UNDAMENTAL
R
IGHT TO
M
ARRY A
P
ERSON OFTHE
S
AME
S
EX
......................................................................................48B. T
HE
E
STABLISHED
F
UNDAMENTAL
R
IGHT TO
M
ARRY
C
ANNOT
P
LAUSIBLY
B
E
C
ONSTRUED TO
I
NCLUDE A
R
IGHT TO
M
ARRY A
P
ERSON OF THE
S
AME
S
EX
...................................................................50V. PROPOSITION 8 IS NOT SUBJECT TO HEIGHTENED EQUALPROTECTION SCRUTINY.........................................................................70VI. PROPOSITION 8 SATISFIES RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW...................75A. P
ROPOSITION
8
 
P
LAINLY
F
URTHERS
C
ALIFORNIA
S
V
ITAL
I
NTEREST IN
R
ESPONSIBLE
P
ROCREATION AND
C
HILDREARING
...........77
 
B.
 
P
ROPOSITION
8
 
A
LLOWS
C
ALIFORNIA TO
P
ROCEED WITH
C
AUTION
W
HEN
C
ONSIDERING
F
UNDAMENTAL
C
HANGES TO A
V
ITALLY
I
MPORTANT
S
OCIAL
I
NSTITUTION
.........................................................93
 
C. P
ROPOSITION
8
 
I
S
N
OT
T
AINTED BY
A
NIMUS OR
O
THER
I
MPERMISSIBLE
C
ONSIDERATIONS
......................................................104CONCLUSION......................................................................................................113
Case: 10-16696 09/17/2010 Page: 3 of 134 ID: 7479041 DktEntry: 21

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)//-->