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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA9Doc 187

CA9Doc 187

Ratings: (0)|Views: 625|Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Amicus brief by Professors William N. Eskridge Jr., Rebecca L. Brown, Bruce A. Ackerman, Daniel A. Farber, Kenneth L. Karst, Andrew Koppelman in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. Filed 10/25/2010.
Amicus brief by Professors William N. Eskridge Jr., Rebecca L. Brown, Bruce A. Ackerman, Daniel A. Farber, Kenneth L. Karst, Andrew Koppelman in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. Filed 10/25/2010.

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Oct 26, 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

12/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
91004-0001/LEGAL19442421.2
 
No. 10-16696IN THEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISTIN PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
 Defendants,and 
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.
 Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)BRIEF OF
AMICI CURIAE 
, PROFESSORS WILLIAM N.ESKRIDGE JR., REBECCA L. BROWN, BRUCE A.ACKERMAN, DANIEL A. FARBER, KENNETH L. KARST,AND ANDREW KOPPELMAN, IN SUPPORT OFAPPELLEES
Kathleen M. O’SullivanAbha KhannaPerkins Coie
LLP
 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800Seattle, WA 98101-3099Telephone: 206.359.8000Facsimile: 206.359.9000Attorneys for
 Amici Curiae
 Professors William N. Eskridge Jr.,
 
Bruce A. Ackerman, Rebecca L. Brown,Daniel A. Farber, Kenneth L. Karst, andAndrew Koppelman, in Support of 
 
Appellees
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 1 of 42 ID: 7522008 DktEntry: 187
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
91004-0001/LEGAL19442421.2
-i-
STATEMENT OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
.........................................................................1
 
ARGUMENT............................................................................................................2
 
I. Save Our Children: Anti-Gay Initiatives, 1977-2008......................................................................................................2
 
II. Proposition 8 Is Inconsistent with the EqualProtection Clause, as Construed in
 Romer v. Evans
..........................13
 
A. Proposition 8 is an unprecedented“exception” to the state constitutionalguarantee of fundamental equality, whichraises an “inevitable inference” of animus................................4
 
B. The campaign in favor of Proposition 8 wasdominated by prejudice-based or morals-based appeals to return gay people tosecond-class status...................................................................19
 
C. The post-hoc justifications for Proposition 8are so under- and over-inclusive that theyconfirm the inference that Proposition 8 wasmotivated by animus rather than by arational basis............................................................................22
 
1. Encourage procreation and child-rearing within marriage.................................................24
 
2. Protect marriage against furtherdecline............................................................................27
 
3. Delay marriage equality so thatCalifornia can study the matter......................................30
 
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................31
 
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 2 of 42 ID: 7522008 DktEntry: 187
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
-ii-
91004-0001/LEGAL19442421.2
 
Cases
 
 Adams v. Howerton
, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)..................................................1
 Baker v. Nelson
, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).......................................................................1
 Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno
, 413 U.S. 528 (1973).....................................................16
 Hunter v. Erickson
, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)................................................................31
 In re Adoption of X.R.G. & N.R.G.
,
 
No. 3D08-3044 (Fla.Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2010)................................................................................4
 In re Marriage Cases
, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)............................................passim
 Lawrence v. Texas
, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)............................................................2, 23
 Lofton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Children & Family Servs.
,
 
358F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004).......................................................................................4
 Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman
, 277 U.S. 32 (1928)..................................19
Parker v. Hurley
, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).........................................................10
Perez v. Lippold 
, 198 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1948)...............................................................17
Plessy v. Ferguson
,
 
163 U.S. 537 (1896).........................................................14, 15
 Reitman v. Mulkey
, 387 U.S. 369 (1967).................................................................18
 Romer v. Evans
, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).............................................................passim
Strauss v. Horton
, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009)......................................................12, 18
The Civil Rights Cases
, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)................................................................1
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 3 of 42 ID: 7522008 DktEntry: 187

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)//-->