UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________)EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, in her )capacity as executor of the estate of )THEA CLARA SPYER, ))Plaintiff, ))v. ) Civil Action No. 10-CV-8435 (BSJ)(JCF))THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))Defendant. )___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT THE BIPARTISANLEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
Paul D. ClementH. Christopher BartolomucciConor B. DuganNicholas J. NelsonBANCROFT PLLC1919 M Street, Northwest, Suite 470Washington, District of Columbia 20036
Counsel for the Bipartisan Legal AdvisoryGroup of the U.S. House of Representatives
OF COUNSEL:Kerry W. Kircher, General CounselChristine Davenport, Senior Assistant CounselKatherine E. McCarron, Assistant CounselWilliam Pittard, Assistant CounselKirsten W. Konar, Assistant CounselOFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSELU.S. House of Representatives219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, District of Columbia 20515
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 53 Filed 08/01/11 57 Pages
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................iiiINTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1BACKGROUND................................................................................................................2Edith Schlain Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer........................................................2The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996....................................................................3DOMA’s Legislative Branch History.....................................................................4DOMA’s Executive Branch History.......................................................................9ARGUMENT......................................................................................................................11I.
DOMA FULLY COMPLIES WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALGUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION. ............................................11A. As an Act of Congress, DOMA Is Entitled to a StrongPresumption of Constitutionality. .....................................................11B. Binding Supreme Court Precedent Supports DOMA’sConstitutionality. ...............................................................................12C. Rational Basis Review, Not Any Form of HeightenedScrutiny, Applies to DOMA. ............................................................161. DOMA Does Not Infringe the Fundamental Right toMarriage. ..................................................................................16a.
Same-Sex Marriage Is Not a Fundamental Right. .............16b.
DOMA Implicates Federal Benefits, Not the Rightof Same-Sex Couples to Marry. .........................................202. DOMA Does Not Employ a Suspect or Quasi-SuspectClassification. ...........................................................................22D.
DOMA Easily Satisfies Rational Basis Review. ..............................261. Myriad Rational Bases Support DOMA. .................................28
iia.
Congress Rationally Could Have Acted withCaution in the Face of the Unknown Consequencesof a Proposed Novel Redefinition of theFoundational Social Institution. .........................................28b.
Congress Rationally Could Have Acted to Protectthe Public Fisc and Preserve the Balance Struck byEarlier Congresses in Allocating Federal Burdensand Benefits. ......................................................................32c.
Congress Rationally Could Have Acted to Providefor Consistency in Eligibility for Federal BenefitsBased on Marital Status. ....................................................33d.
Congress Rationally Could Have Acted to AvoidCreating a Social Understanding That Begettingand Rearing Children Is Not Inextricably Boundup with Marriage. ...............................................................35e.
Congress Rationally Could Have Acted to FosterMarriages That Provide Children with Parents of Both Sexes. ........................................................................38II.
ANY REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEFTTO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. .......................................................43CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................45
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
DOMA’s Legislative Branch History for 1:10-cv-08435 #53
Doc #53
934
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
