No. 10-16696
I
N THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS
FOR THE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________KRISTIN PERRY,
et al.
,Plaintiffs-Appellees,vs.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.
,Defendants,andDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants
.__________________________________________________________________Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of CaliforniaCivil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW(Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)__________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF
AMICI CURIAE
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORMARRIAGE, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGERHODE ISLAND, AND FAMILY LEADERIN SUPPORT OF THE INTERVENING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
.William C. Duncan Joshua K. BakerM
ARRIAGE
L
AW
F
OUNDATION
N
ATIONAL
O
RGANIZATION FOR
M
ARRIAGE
1868 N 800 E 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300Lehi, UT 84043 Washington, DC 20006Phone: (801) 367-4570 Phone: (888) 894-3604duncanw@marriagelawfoundation.org Fax: (866) 383-2074 jbaker@nationformarriage.org
Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Organization for Marriage, et al.
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 1 of 43 ID: 7487163 DktEntry: 68
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, the undersigned statesthat none of the
amici
is a corporation that issues stock or has a parent corporationthat issues stock. /s/ Joshua K. Baker__Joshua K. BakerCounsel for
Amici Curiae
September 24, 2010
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 2 of 43 ID: 7487163 DktEntry: 68
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... iTABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... ivINTERESTS OF THE
AND CONSENT TO FILE ...................................... 1INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3I. REDEFINING MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE SAME-SEX COUPLESWILL CHANGE THE PUBLIC MEANING AND PURPOSE OFMARRIAGE IN A WAY THAT WILL WEAKEN OR SEVER ITSRELATIONSHIP TO PROCREATION IN THE PUBLIC MIND. ................ 3A. Marriage is intrinsically linked to procreation in law and society .......... 3B. The public meaning of marriage matters. ................................................ 5C. Same-sex marriage will disconnect marriage in law from itspublic purpose of promoting responsible procreation. .................................... 7D. Supporters and opponents of gay marriage agree that redefiningmarriage will transform marriage and its public meaning. ........................... 11II. GAY MARRIAGE MAY UNDERMINE MALE WILLINGNESS TOSACRIFICE FOR CHILDREN, BY UNDERMINING THE IDEATHAT CHILDREN NEED THEIR FATHERS. ............................................ 15III. BY SEVERING THE LINK TO PROCREATION, THEREDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE ANY TWOPEOPLE REGARDLESS OF GENDER WOULD UNDERMINETHE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT MARRIAGEREGULATION. .............................................................................................. 21
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 3 of 43 ID: 7487163 DktEntry: 68
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
