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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Boehner/Clement Oppose Summ. Judgment in DOMA case

Boehner/Clement Oppose Summ. Judgment in DOMA case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,167 |Likes:
Published by JoeSudbay
Boehner lays out his antii-gay case
Boehner lays out his antii-gay case

More info:

Published by: JoeSudbay on Aug 10, 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

01/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
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 IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’SOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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 50 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 35
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................iiINTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................2STANDARD OF REVIEW...................................................................................................2ARGUMENT.........................................................................................................................5I.
 
THE
 
CLASSIFICATION
 
AT
 
ISSUE
 
IN
 
DOMA
 
IS
 
NOT
 
SUBJECT
 
TO
 
ANY
 
FORM
 
OF
 
HEIGHTENED
 
SCRUTINY.
 
...............................................5A.
 
Persuasive Authority Unequivocally Supports the ConclusionThat Homosexuals Are Not a Suspect Class. .......................................5B.
 
Based on the Traditional Criteria Used to Determine Suspector Quasi-Suspect Classes, Homosexuals Clearly Are Nota Suspect or Quasi-Suspect Class. .......................................................71. History of Discrimination. ....................................................82. Ability to Participate in or Contribute to Society. ................93. Immutability. .........................................................................104. Political Powerlessness. ........................................................12II.
 
PLAINTIFF’S
 
ADDITIONAL
 
ARGUMENTS
 
ALSO
 
FAIL.
 
.........................21A.
 
The Federal Government Has Involved Itself in Marriage Law inCircumstances of Deviation from the Traditional Definition. .............21B.
 
Plaintiff Misstates the Science on Same-Sex Parenting. .....................23III.
 
PLAINTIFF
 
HAS
 
FAILED
 
TO
 
ESTABLISH
 
THAT
 
HER
 
SAME-SEX
 
MARRIAGE
 
WAS
 
VALID
 
FOR
 
THE
 
TAX
 
YEAR
 
IN
 
QUESTION.
 
.............24CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................25
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 50 Filed 08/01/11 Page 2 of 35
 
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
 Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.
, 398 U.S. 144 (1970)....................................................3
  Ben-Shalom v. Marsh
, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989).................................................6, 19
 Citizens for Equal Prot. v. Bruning
, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)...........................5, 6
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.
, 473 U.S. 432 (1985)................................
 passim
 
Clark v. Jeter 
, 486 U.S. 456 (2008)...........................................................................3 n.1
 Cook v. Gates
, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008),
cert. denied sub. nom.
,
Pietrangelo v. Gates
, 129 S. Ct. 2763 (2009)............................................................5-6
 
F.C.C. v. Beach Commnc’ns, Inc.
, 508 U.S. 307 (1993)...........................................4, 21
 Frontiero v. Richardson
, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)..........................................................7, 9, 11
  Dandridge v. Williams
, 397 U.S. 471 (1970)............................................................4
  Disabled Am. Veterans v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs
, 962 F.2d 136(2d Cir. 1992).............................................................................................................10, 20
 Giannullo v. City of New York 
, 322 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003)....................................3
  Heller v. Doe
, 509 U.S. 312 (1993)...........................................................................4, 21 n.35
  Hernandez v. Robles
, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006).......................................................25
  High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Office
, 895 F.2d 563(9th Cir. 1990)............................................................................................................6, 12, 19
  In re Kandu
, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004).............................................6
  Johnson v. Robison
, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)..................................................................20
 Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
, 171 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 1999)....................................2
 
Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schs.
, 487 U.S. 450 (1988)...........................................3
  Lawrence v. Texas
, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)...................................................................5, 7, 8
 Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.
, 410 U.S. 356 (1973)..............................4
 
 Leib v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n
, 558 F.3d 1301(11th Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................................21 n.35
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 50 Filed 08/01/11 Page 3 of 35

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->