No. 10-16696IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITKRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacityas Governor of California, et al.,
Defendants
,andDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants
. Appeal from United States District Courtfor the Northern District of CaliforniaCivil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)BRIEF OF STATES OF INDIANA, VIRGINIA,LOUISIANA, MICHIGAN, ALABAMA, ALASKA, FLORIDA, IDAHO,NEBRASKA, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, UTAH, and WYOMING AS
AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS- APPELLANTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al. AND IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
G
REGORY
F.
Z
OELLER
, A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor GeneralEllen
H.
Meilaender, Deputy A.G.Office of Attorney General302 W. Washington Street, 5
th
FloorIndianapolis, Indiana 46204(317) 232-6255; (317) 232-7979 (fax)K
ENNETH
T.
C
UCCINELLI
,
II, A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
E. Duncan Getchell, Solicitor GeneralStephen McCullough, Deputy S.G.Office of the Attorney General900 E Main StreetRichmond, Virginia 23219(804) 786-2436; (804) 786-1991 (fax)M
ICHAEL
A.
C
OX
, A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
Eric Restuccia, Solicitor GeneralOffice of the Attorney General525 W. Ottawa, Fourth FloorLansing, Michigan 48913(517) 373-1124; (517) 373-4916 (fax)J
AMES
D.
C
ALDWELL
, A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
Kyle Duncan, Appellate Chief Louisiana Department of JusticeP.O. Box 94005Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005(225) 326-6716; (225) 326-6096 (fax)
Counsel for Amici States Additional counsel listed inside cover
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 1 of 50 ID: 7487142 DktEntry: 61
A
DDITIONAL COUNSEL
T
ROY
K
ING
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
S
TATE OF
A
LABAMA
D
ANIEL
S.
S
ULLIVAN
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
S
TATE OF
A
LASKA
B
ILL
M
C
C
OLLUM
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
S
TATE OF
F
LORIDA
L
AWRENCE
G.
W
ASDEN
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
S
TATE OF
I
DAHO
J
ON
B
RUNING
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
S
TATE OF
N
EBRASKA
T
HOMAS
W.
C
ORBETT
,
J
R
. A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
C
OMMONWEALTH OF
P
ENNSYLVANIA
H
ENRY
M
C
M
ASTER
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
S
TATE OF
S
OUTH
C
AROLINA
M
ARK
L.
S
HURTLEFF
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
S
TATE OF
U
TAH
B
RUCE
A.
S
ALZBURG
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
S
TATE OF
W
YOMING
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 2 of 50 ID: 7487142 DktEntry: 61
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iiiINTEREST OF THE AMICI STATES .......................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 2I. States Have Sovereign Primacy Over Marriage. ............................................... 2II.
Baker v. Nelson
Compels Reversal. .................................................................... 6III. No Fundamental Rights or Suspect Classes are Implicated. ............................ 8 A. Same sex marriage is not a fundamental right that is deeply rooted inthis nation’s history and tradition. .......................................................... 8B. Limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman does notimplicate a suspect class. ....................................................................... 10IV. The Concept of Traditional Marriage Embodied in the Laws of Forty-FiveStates Satisfies Rational Basis Review. ........................................................... 12 A. Rational basis standard is highly deferential. ...................................... 12B. The definition of marriage is too deeply embedded in our laws, historyand traditions for a court to hold that the democratic choice to adhereto that definition is irrational. ............................................................... 13C. Protecting the fundamental institution of traditional marriage fromthe law of unintended consequences is rational. .................................. 15D. States recognize marriages between members of the opposite sex inorder to encourage responsible procreation, and this rationale does notapply to same-sex couples. ..................................................................... 161. Marriage serves interests inextricably linked to the procreativenature of opposite-sex relationships. .......................................... 172. Courts have long recognized the responsible procreation purposeof marriage... ................................................................................ 223. “Overbreadth” arguments do not undermine the responsibleprocreation theory. ...................................................................... 264. Parenting by same-sex couples does not implicate the same stateinterests. ...................................................................................... 27 V. The District Court’s New Definition of Marriage Contains No PrincipleLimiting the Types of Relationships That Can Make Claims on the State. ... 29 A. The district court’s open-ended re-definition of marriage has no legalbasis and no principled limits. ............................................................... 29
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 3 of 50 ID: 7487142 DktEntry: 61
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
