I
NTERVENOR
-D
EFENDANT
U.S.
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
’
R
EPLY
M
EMORANDUM OF
P
OINTSAND
A
UTHORITIES IN
S
UPPORT OF ITS
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
—C
ASE
N
O
.
3:10-
CV
-0257-JSW1234567891011121314151617181920212223PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ. (DC Bar 433215)pclement@bancroftpllc.comH. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI, ESQ. (DC Bar 453423)cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.comCONOR B. DUGAN, ESQ. (MI Bar P66901)cdugan@bancroftpllc.comBANCROFT PLLC1919 M Street, NW, Suite 470Washington, DC 20036202-234-0090 (phone); 202-234-2806 (fax)OF COUNSEL:KERRY W. KIRCHER, GENERAL COUNSEL (DC Bar 386816)Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.govCHRISTINE DAVENPORT, SR. ASS’T COUNSEL (NJ Bar)Christine.Davenport@mail.house.govKATHERINE E. MCCARRON, ASS’T COUNSEL (DC Bar 486335)Katherine.McCarron@mail.house.govWILLIAM PITTARD, ASS’T COUNSEL (DC Bar 482949)William.Pittard@mail.house.govKIRSTEN W. KONAR, ASS’T COUNSEL (DC Bar 979176)Kirsten.Konar@mail.house.govOFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSELU.S. House of Representatives219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515202-225-9700 (phone); 202-226-1360 (fax)Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan LegalAdvisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
)KAREN GOLINSKI, ) Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW) Hearing: August 26, 2011, 9:00 a.m.Plaintiff, ))
INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT THE
)
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY
vs. )
GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF
)
REPRESENTATIVES’ REPLY
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL )
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document150 Filed07/15/11 Page1 of 40
iI
NTERVENOR
-D
EFENDANT
U.S.
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
’
R
EPLY
M
EMORANDUM OF
P
OINTSAND
A
UTHORITIES IN
S
UPPORT OF ITS
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
—C
ASE
N
O
.
3:10-
CV
-0257-JSW1234567891011121314151617181920212223MANAGEMENT,
et al.
, )
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
)
ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants. )__________________________________________)TABLE OF CONTENTSSUMMARY
OF
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................
V
ARGUMENT.........................................................................................................................1I.
B
AKER
AND
A
DAMS
S
QUARELY
C
ONTROL
H
ERE
.................................................................1A.
Baker
....................................................................................................................1B.
Adams
...................................................................................................................4II.
R
ATIONAL
-B
ASIS
S
CRUTINY
A
PPLIES
................................................................................5A.
High Tech Gays
Forecloses any Application of Heightened Scrutiny................5B.
Homosexuals Bear None of the Characteristics of a Quasi-Suspect Class..........81.
The Traditional Definition of Marriage was not Historically Intended as Class-Based Discrimination
.................................................8
2.
Characteristics Defined by Conduct are not Proper Markers for Suspect Classes
........................................................................................83.
Homosexuality is Highly Relevant to an Individual’s Ability toConceive and Bear Children, Which is Foundational to the Purposeof Marriage
..............................................................................................114.
Homosexuals are not a Politically Powerless Minority
..........................12C.
DOMA Does not Discriminate Based on Sex......................................................15D.
DOMA Does not Impact any Right to Form Family Relationships....................15III.
DOMA
P
ASSES THE
R
ATIONAL
-B
ASIS
T
EST
....................................................................17A.
Plaintiff Fundamentally Misconceives the Nature of Rational Basis Review.....17B.
A Myriad of Government Interests Support DOMA...........................................201.
Congress Desired to Preserve Nationwide Uniformity in the Allocation of Federal Marital Benefits and Duties
..................................20
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document150 Filed07/15/11 Page2 of 40
iiI
NTERVENOR
-D
EFENDANT
U.S.
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
’
R
EPLY
M
EMORANDUM OF
P
OINTSAND
A
UTHORITIES IN
S
UPPORT OF ITS
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
—C
ASE
N
O
.
3:10-
CV
-0257-JSW12345678910111213141516171819202122232.
Congress was Justified in Acting With Caution When Faced With theUnknown Consequences of a Proposed Novel Redefinition of theFoundational Social Institution of Marriage
...........................................213.
DOMA is Rationally Based on Biological Differences and Furthersthe Government Interest in Incentivizing Childrearing by Parentsof Both Sexes
............................................................................................244.
Congress Desired to Avoid Creating a Social Understanding That the Begetting and Rearing of Children is not Inextricably Bound up With Marriage
.....................................................................................26C.
Congress Is not Constitutionally Required to Accept any and all Definitionsof “Marriage” and “Spouse” Adopted by the States............................................27CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................29CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document150 Filed07/15/11 Page3 of 40
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
II. RATIONAL-BASIS SCRUTINY APPLIES for 3:10-cv-00257 #150
Doc #150
437
Reads
1
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
