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 or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mass_DOMA_Appeals #5591471

Mass_DOMA_Appeals #5591471

Ratings: (0)|Views: 667|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #5591471 - Gill Response brief
Doc #5591471 - Gill Response brief

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Oct 27, 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

10/27/2011

pdf

text

original

 
NOS. 10-2204/10-2207/10-2214IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________________________
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,P
LAINTIFF
-A
PPELLEE
,V.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.,D
EFENDANTS
-A
PPELLANTS
.
___________________________________________________________________________________
DEAN HARA,P
LAINTIFF
-A
PPELLEE
 /C
ROSS
-A
PPELLANT
,NANCY GILL, ET AL.,P
LAINTIFFS
-A
PPELLEES
,V.OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ET AL.,D
EFENDANTS
-A
PPELLANTS
 /C
ROSS
-A
PPELLEES
 
______________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF
M
ASSACHUSETTS
 
______________________________________________
BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS
-
APPELLEES NANCY GILL
,
ET AL
.
ANDPLAINTIFF
-
APPELLEE
 / 
CROSS
-
APPELLANT DEAN HARA
 
G
AY
&
 
L
ESBIAN
A
DVOCATES
&
 
D
EFENDERS
 Gary D. Buseck Mary L. BonautoVickie L. HenryJanson Wu30 Winter Street, Suite 800Boston, MA 02108Telephone (617) 426-1350
 Attorneys for Appellees & Cross-Appellant 
J
ENNER
&
 
B
LOCK
LLP
 
Paul M. SmithLuke C. PlatzerMatthew J. DunneMelissa A. Cox1099 New York Ave, NW, Suite 900Washington, DC 20001Telephone (202) 639-6060
 Attorneys for Appellees & Cross-Appellant 
October 27, 2011
F
OLEY
H
OAG
LLPClaire LaporteAra B. GershengornMatthew E. MillerAmy SenierCatherine Deneke155 Seaport Blvd.Boston, MA 02210Telephone (617) 832-1000
 Attorneys for Appellees & Cross-Appellant 
S
ULLIVAN
&
 
W
ORCESTER
LLPDavid J. NagleRichard L. JonesOne Post Office SquareBoston, MA 02109Telephone (617) 338-2873
 Attorneys for Appellees Mary Ritchie, Kathleen Bush, Melba Abreu, Beatrice Hernandez, Marlin Nabors, Jonathan Knight, Mary Bowe-Shulman, and Dorene Bowe-Shulman
Case: 10-2207 Document: 00116283055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2011 Entry ID: 5591471
ALSO filed in Cases 10-2204, 10-2214
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................ivSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................1INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE...............................................................3A. Proceedings Below and in this Court....................................................3B. Statutory Scheme...................................................................................5COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................5A. DOMA Was Passed to Codify Congress’s Condemnation of Marriage By Same-Sex Couples...........................................................5B. DOMA Nullifies Plaintiffs’ Marriages for All Federal Purposes.........8C. The District Court Carefully Evaluated and Rejected EachProffered Rationale for DOMA...........................................................12SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...............................................................................18ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................22I. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT DOMAFAILS RATIONAL-BASIS REVIEW.........................................................22A. Rational-Basis Review Is Meaningful, Not Toothless........................22B. The District Court Correctly Applied Rational-Basis Review...........24C. BLAG’s Family Law Justifications Are Improper as FederalObjectives and DOMA Does Not Further Them................................261. Marital Status Is a Matter of State, Not Federal, Concern.......272. Favoring Heterosexual Procreation..........................................283. Affecting the Behavior of Heterosexuals..................................31
Case: 10-2207 Document: 00116283055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2011 Entry ID: 5591471
 
ii
 
4. Avoiding Undefined “Unknown Consequences” of Marriage by Same-Sex Couples................................................34D. BLAG’s Two Asserted Interests Actually Related to FederalObjectives Do Not Support DOMA Either.........................................361. Saving Money...........................................................................362. Preventing Married Same-Sex Couples from ObtainingRights and Benefits Inaccessible to Unmarried Same-SexCouples......................................................................................40E. DOMA Can Be Explained Only By Impermissible AnimusAgainst Gay Men and Lesbians..........................................................44II. DOMA IS SUBJECT TO, AND FAILS, HEIGHTENEDSCRUTINY...................................................................................................45A. DOMA Discriminates on the Basis of Sexual Orientation.................461.
Cook v. Gates
Does Not Control..............................................472. All Factors Indicate Sexual Orientation DiscriminationRequires Heightened Scrutiny..................................................50B. Plaintiffs’ Fundamental Interest In Maintaining the Integrity of Their Existing Families and Marriages Demands HeightenedScrutiny...............................................................................................55C. DOMA’s Intrusion Into the Realm of Marital Status WarrantsClose Scrutiny.....................................................................................58D. DOMA Fails Heightened Scrutiny......................................................59III.
 BAKER v. NELSON 
DOES NOT CONTROL THIS CASE.........................60A.
 Baker 
Presented Different Claims.......................................................61B.
 Baker 
Is No Longer Good Law...........................................................63IV. THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS HAS ALREADY SETTLEDPLAINTIFFS’ MARITAL STATUS............................................................64BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF/CROSS-APPELLANT, DEAN HARA...........................65
Case: 10-2207 Document: 00116283055 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2011 Entry ID: 5591471

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)//-->