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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Foundation Moral Law Amicus Brief - Mass DOMA cases

Foundation Moral Law Amicus Brief - Mass DOMA cases

Ratings: (0)|Views: 24 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Amicus Brief of Foundation for Moral Law filed in the Massachusetts DOMA cases in support of upholding DOMA. Filed 1/20/2011
Amicus Brief of Foundation for Moral Law filed in the Massachusetts DOMA cases in support of upholding DOMA. Filed 1/20/2011

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Jan 20, 2011
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

01/20/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Appeal Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207 & 10-2214IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ______________________ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,Defendants-Appellants. ______________________ DEAN HARA,Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,NANCY GILL, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. __________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAWSUPPORTING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ANDSUPPORTING REVERSAL
 _________________________________________________________________
Roy S. MooreJohn A. Eidsmoe*Benjamin D. DuPréFOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAWOne Dexter AvenueMontgomery, AL 36104(334) 262-1245January 20, 2011 *Counsel of Record
 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116160840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2011 Entry ID: 5520436
 
 
C-1
Massachusetts v. HHS,
Appeal Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207 & 10-2214CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ______________________ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,Defendants-Appellants. ______________________ DEAN HARA,Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, NANCY GILL, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
 Amicus curiae
Foundation for Moral Law is a designated Internal RevenueCode 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation.
 Amicus
has no parent corporations, and no publicly held company owns ten percent (10%) or more of 
amicus
. No other lawfirm has appeared on behalf of the Foundation in this or any other case in which ithas been involved.s/ John A. EidsmoeJohn A. Eidsmoe
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116160840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2011 Entry ID: 5520436
 
 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.....................................................C-1TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................iiiSTATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
............ 1SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE.................................................................... 2SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................................................ 3ARGUMENT............................................................................................................ 5I. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEFENSE OFMARRIAGE ACT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THETEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OFTHE LAND. ........................................................................................ 5II. THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATETHE EQUAL PROTECTION COMPONENT OF THE FIFTHAMENDMENT BECAUSE THE FIFTH AMENDMENTCONTAINS NO SUCH COMPONENT............................................. 9III. THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT IS RATIONALLYSUPPORTED BY MANY LEGITIMATE REASONS,INCLUDING THE “LAW OF NATURE AND OF NATURE’SGOD” AND THOSE INTERESTS ADVANCED BYCONGRESS WHEN IT PASSED THE STATUTE.......................... 12A. “All men are created equal” and as either male or female...... 12B. Homosexual conduct was, until recently, stronglydisapproved in most cultures and in Anglo-Americanlaw. .......................................................................................... 14C. Same-sex “marriage” was inconceivable in Anglo-American common law. .......................................................... 17
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116160840 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/20/2011 Entry ID: 5520436

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)//-->