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
Liberty Counsel Amicus Brief - Mass DOMA Cases

Liberty Counsel Amicus Brief - Mass DOMA Cases

Ratings: (0)|Views: 33 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Amicus brief by Liberty Counsel in the Massachusetts DOMA cases, in support of reversal of the district court decision. Filed 1/26/2011
Amicus brief by Liberty Counsel in the Massachusetts DOMA cases, in support of reversal of the district court decision. Filed 1/26/2011

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Jan 26, 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

01/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Consolidated Case Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207 and 10-2214______________________________________________________________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.
______________________________________________ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS________________________________________________________________
PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
 _________________________________________________________________Mathew D. Staver (#32617)Anita L. Staver (#10312)LIBERTY COUNSELPO Box 540774Orlando, FL 32854-0774Telephone 800-671-1776Facsimile 407-875-0770court@lc.org Stephen M. Crampton (#74377)Mary E. McAlister (#103036)Rena M. Lindevaldsen (#98490)LIBERTY COUNSELPO Box 11108Lynchburg, VA 24506Telephone 434-592-7000Facsimile 434-592-7700court@lc.org
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2011 Entry ID: 5521714
 
i
 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Proposed
 
Amicus Curiae Liberty Counsel states, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.26.1, that there is no parent corporation or publicly held corporation that owns 10percent or more of its stock.
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163092 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2011 Entry ID: 5521714
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
 
STATEMENT OF INTEREST .................................................................................. 1
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2
 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3
 
CONGRESS ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT DEFINEDMARRIAGE IN DOMA FOR PURPOSES OF INTERPRETING FEDERALSTATUTES AND REGULATIONS. .................................................................... 3A. Congress Cannot Act Outside Its Powers. .................................................. 3
 
1. The federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers. ............... 32.
Defining marriage for purposes of federal law is within Congress‟
authority. .......................................................................................................... 6B. Congress Has Long Defined Marriage for Federal Purposes and ThatDefinition is Constitutional. ................................................................................ 9
 
1.
The Supreme Court has affirmed Congress‟ authority to define marriage.
92. DOMA does not interfere with state authority to regulate marriage withinits borders. ......................................................................................................113. The Parental Kidnapping and Prevention Act is an example of a federalstatute that directly interferes with state authority to regulate marriage andfamily. ............................................................................................................144. Loving v. Virginia is readily distinguishable. ..........................................18C. Defining Marriage as the Union of One Man and One Woman in TheChallenged Federal Programs Is Related to the Federal Interest in ThosePrograms............................................................................................................20
 
D. Congress Has an Important Governmental Interest in Defining Marriage,Including Providing a Male and Female Role Model in the Family Unit. .......22
 
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163092 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2011 Entry ID: 5521714

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)//-->