Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
N
OS
.
 
10-16696 & 11-16577
D
ECIDED
F
EBRUARY
7,
 
2012(C
IRCUIT
J
UDGES
S
TEPHEN
R
EINHARDT
,
 
M
ICHAEL
H
AWKINS
&
 
N.R.
 
S
MITH
)
U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS
 F
OR
T
HE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
 
KRISTIN PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v.EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., et al.,
 Defendants
,andDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
 Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants
.On Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaCivil Case No. 09-CV-2292 JW (Honorable James Ware)
 APPELLANTS’ PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Andrew P. PugnoL
AW
O
FFICES OF
A
NDREW
P.
 
P
UGNO
 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100Folsom, California 95630(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 FaxBrian W. RaumJames A. CampbellA
LLIANCE
D
EFENSE
F
UND
 15100 North 90th StreetScottsdale, Arizona 85260(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 FaxCharles J. Cooper
Counsel of Record 
David H. Thompson
 
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.Peter A. Patterson
 
C
OOPER AND
K
IRK
,
 
PLLC1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax
 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com
Case: 10-16696 02/21/2012 ID: 8075746 DktEntry: 402-1 Page: 1 of 61
(1 of 189)
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................iiiSTATEMENT............................................................................................................1INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................2ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................10I. T
HE
P
ANEL
M
AJORITY
M
ISAPPLIED
 R
OMER V 
.
 
 E 
VANS
.....................................10II. T
HE
P
ANEL
M
AJORITY
’
S
D
ECISION
C
ONFLICTS WITH
C 
 RAWFORD V 
.
 
 B
OARD OF 
 E 
 DUCATION 
..............................................................20III. T
HE
P
ANEL
M
AJORITY
’
S
D
ECISION
C
ONFLICTS
W
ITH
B
INDING
P
RECEDENT OF THE
S
UPREME
C
OURT AND
T
HIS
C
OURT AND WITHTHE
U
NIFORM
C
ONCLUSION OF
E
VERY
O
THER
A
PPELLATE
C
OURTTO
A
DDRESS
A
 
F
EDERAL
C
ONSTITUTIONAL
C
HALLENGE TO THE
T
RADITIONAL
D
EFINITION OF
M
ARRIAGE
.......................................................23IV. T
HE
P
ANEL
M
AJORITY
’
S
H
OLDING
T
HAT
P
ROPOSITION
8
 
D
OES
N
OT
R
EASONABLY
R
ELATE TO THE
S
TATE
’
S
I
NTEREST IN
R
ESPONSIBLE
P
ROCREATION AND
C
HILDREARING
C
ONFLICTS WITH THE
D
ECISIONSOF OTHER
C
OURTS AND
C
ONTRAVENES
B
INDING
P
RINCIPLES OF
R
ATIONAL
-B
ASIS
R
EVIEW
..............................................................................26A. The Traditional Definition of Marriage Reflected inProposition 8 Bears a Rational Relationship to Society’sVital Interest in Responsible Procreation and Childrearing................26B. That Proposition 8
 Restored 
the Traditional Definitionof Marriage Does Not Render It Irrational..........................................32C. That Proposition 8 Did Not Eliminate Domestic PartnershipsDoes Not Render It Irrational..............................................................36V. T
HE
P
ANEL
M
AJORITY
E
RRED IN
H
OLDING THAT
P
ROPOSITION
8
 
I
S
N
OT
R
ATIONALLY
R
ELATED
T
O
A
NY
O
THER
L
EGITIMATE
S
TATE
I
NTERESTS
.......................................................................................................43
Case: 10-16696 02/21/2012 ID: 8075746 DktEntry: 402-1 Page: 2 of 61
(2 of 189)
 
 iiVI. T
HE
P
ANEL
E
RRED IN
A
FFIRMING THE
D
ENIAL OF
P
ROPONENTS
’
 
M
OTION TO
V
ACATE
.......................................................................................48CONCLUSION........................................................................................................51
Case: 10-16696 02/21/2012 ID: 8075746 DktEntry: 402-1 Page: 3 of 61
(3 of 189)
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more