You are on page 1of 34

No.

14-50196
_________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________
CLEOPATRA DE LEON; NICOLE DIMETMAN; VICTOR HOLMES;
MARK PHARISS,

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES;
v.
RICK PERRY, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the
State of Texas; GREG ABBOTT, in His Official Capacity as
Texas Attorney General; DAVID LAKEY, in His Official
Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of State
Health Services,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
____________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANTONIO DIVISION, CASE NO.
5:13-CV-982
___________________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE KATY FAUST SUPPORTING
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND SUPPORTING REVERSAL
___________________________________________

David Boyle
P.O. Box 15143
Long Beach, CA 90815
(734) 904-6132
dbo@boyleslaw.org
Counsel for Amicus Curiae B.N. Klein
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2014


i

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Case 14-50196, Civil
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1, the undersigned counsel of record
certifies that the following listed persons and entities as described in the fourth
sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. These
representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate
possible disqualification or recusal.
APPELLANTS:

Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas.
Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Texas Attorney General.
David Lakey, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of
State Health Services.
(APPELLANTS’ ATTORNEYS:
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor General
Kyle D. Highful
Beth Ellen Klusmann
Michael P. Murphy
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL)
APPELLEES:
Cleopatra DeLeon, Nicole Dimetman, Victor Holmes, Mark Phariss.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2014


ii

(APPELLEES’ ATTORNEYS:
Barry Alan Chasnoff
Jessica M. Weisel
Michael P. Cooley
Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr.
Andrew Forest Newman
Matthew Edwin Pepping
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP)

This list does not include the various amici in the case, especially since they are
not parties or parties’ attorneys, and the list of amici is growing. However, if
wished, a list can be supplied.

Amicus Curiae Katy Faust is an individual who has no parent corporation, or
any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of stock of that nonexistent
parent corporation.
s/David Boyle
Attorney of record for Amicus
Curiae Katy Faust


Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2014


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS…………………………………….i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………….....v
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1
A. GOVERNMENT’S INTEREST IN MARRIAGE...............................................4
B. RIGHTS................................................................................................................5
C. FAMILY STRUCTURE……...............................................................................9
RESPONSES TO COMMON OBJECTIONS........................................................13
I. I am not saying that same-sex attraction makes you a bad parent..............13
II. I am not saying that those in same sex relationships are incapable of
commitment................................................................................................13
III. “But marriage has never been about children, because many heterosexual
marriages don’t produce children”.............................................................13
IV. But what about the childless heterosexual couple?....................................16
V. Some argue that two loving and caring men make a better home than a
drug-addicted single mom..........................................................................16
VI. “But what about the hardship that many LGBTQ people have
suffered?”……………………………………………………………........18
VII. Other threats to child rights........................................................................18
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/15/2014


iv

VIII. “Marriage should just be about adult emotional bonds”...........................19
(ANTECONCLUSION)……………………………….…………………...……..19
CONCLUSION………….…………………………….…………………...……..21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………………………………22

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC COMPLIANCE ……………………………23
FORM 6. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)……………..24














Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/15/2014


v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (No. 5:13-cv-982, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D.
Tex. Feb. 12, 2014))…………………………………………………………...1

RULES
Fed. R. App. P. 29……………………………………………………………...1 n.1

OTHER AUTHORITIES
Def. of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), Pub. L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996),
codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, overruled in part by United States
v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)..................................................................5 &n.2
Frank Ligtvoet, The Misnomer of ‘Motherless’ Parenting, N.Y. Times, June 22nd,
2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-
misnomer-of-motherless-parenting.html?_r=1&.......................................9-10 & n.3
NPR Staff, What Happens When Kids Fall 'Far From The Tree', NPR Books, Nov.
8th, 2012, 5:58 p.m., http://m.npr.org/news/Books/163468489..............11 & n.4, 12
The Parent Trap (directed by David Smith; Walt Disney Productions 1961)……15
The Parent Trap (directed by Nancy Meyers; Walt Disney Pictures 1998).…15, 16
U.N. Convention on the Rts. of the Child (1989)....................................................12
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/15/2014


vi

USA Today, Obama speaks on importance of fatherhood, The Oval blog, Feb.
17th, 2013, 9:50 a.m., http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/17/obama-
chicago-fatherhood-economy-gun-control/ 1925727/...................................22 & n.5

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

1

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The present amicus curiae, Katy Faust,
1
is respectfully filing this Brief in
Support of Defendants-Appellants, Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, and David Lakey, in
De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (No. 5:13-cv-982, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D.
Tex. Feb. 12, 2014)). I grew up with two lesbian parents and wish to discuss my
experience.
ARGUMENT
INTRODUCTION
My mother and her partner have been together since I was 10, soon after my
parents’ divorce. Since that time much of my life was spent in their home,
surrounded by their community of women. They were deeply involved in my
childhood and adolescence, and I have fond memories of them attending my
concerts, sporting events, plays, and graduation. Even when off to college,
studying in Taiwan on a Fulbright scholarship, during my career at the largest
Chinese adoption agency in the world, and as my husband and I began to raise our
children, I have remained in close contact with my mother and her partner. They
continue to be a loving and supportive fixture in my family.

1
I wrote the vast majority of this brief without help from any other party or its
counsel, though my own counsel gave editing, formatting, or other help at the end;
and no party or its counsel gave money to its writing or submission, see Fed. R.
App. P. 29. All parties have filed blanket permission with the Court for amicae/i to
write briefs.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

2

None the less, I oppose gay marriage. The foremost focus of my opposition
to gay marriage is the rights and well-being of children.
I want to be clear that my advocacy against gay marriage and for the rights
of children will never include condemnation of my mother and her partner or
details about their private lives. Unlike some in the gay lobby who often uses
children as pawns to forward their cause, I will not be sharing specifics about my
parents to advance my arguments. What you need to know about my parents and
their partners/spouses, is that I love them. They are worthy of dignity, respect and
privacy.
Some adult children with gay parents shy away from making their thoughts
about marriage public because we do not want to jeopardize our relationships with
those to whom our hearts are tethered. Unfortunately, many gay-marriage
lobbyists have made gay marriage the sole badge of loyalty to our LGBT family
and friends. The label of bigot or hater has become very powerful and effective
tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of
many gay lobbyists. However, those tactics are no longer strong enough to keep
me silent. Advocating for the rights of children, and how they relate to the
institution of marriage, is not something that anyone should be timid about.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

3

For much of my adult life I was content to keep my opinions on the subject
of marriage to myself. I was (and still am) sickened by the accusation that I was
bigoted and anti-gay for my belief in natural marriage. For many years those
devices kept me quiet. I didn’t seek a venue where I could share my views. But I
have come to realize that my silence, and the silence of others, has allowed for the
conversation to be dominated by those who claim that only animus, ignorance, or
indoctrination could lead one to oppose “marriage equality.”
You may credit the writing of this brief to a gay marriage supporter. In 2012
I began blogging under a pseudonym with the goal of centering the marriage
discussion on children’s rights and well-being—where the debates belong. But
several supporters of gay marriage considered my position not only wrong, but
“harmful.” So in addition to writing smear pieces on me, trolling my blog, and
attacking any commenter who was willing to support me, one gay advocate felt
that I needed to be exposed in the name of “accountability.” So he mined the
internet and revealed my identity. His cohorts shared my name on their own blogs
and told my husband that “they knew who his wife was.” This blogger wrote
slanderous posts on my church and published the names and address of our church
leaders for the purpose of intimidation. (The names and addresses have since been
removed, for which I am grateful.) Since I cannot be “un-outed” I am now writing
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

4

under my own name. Had I not been forcibly exposed in the name of “love and
tolerance,” I would not be submitting this brief today.
A. GOVERNMENT’S INTEREST IN MARRIAGE
As you deliberate on whether or not to redefine marriage into a genderless
institution, the primary question is: What is society’s interest in marriage? Is it to
validate the emotional bonds of adults? Is it to stabilize partnerships? Is it an
instrument with which to give a stamp of equality to our gay brothers and sisters?
Adults can, and should, be able to form consensual relationships of their choosing.
Barriers to a partner’s bedside in the hospital, shared property rights, and freedom
to live the life they desire should never be imposed upon by government. If
society's concern in marriage is adults, then by all means redefine this institution
which has spanned centuries, cultures and religions to suit that perception.
But the reality is that society’s interest in marriage is not an adult-centric one
after all. Government’s interest in marriage is children. When Congress enacted
the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
2
in 1996, they had this to say about the
reason behind the legislation: “[A]t bottom, civil society has an interest in
maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a
deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing.

2
Def. of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), Pub. L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996),
codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, overruled in part by United States
v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

5

Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in
children.” Id.
B. RIGHTS
Our elected government’s primary role in this, and any legislation, is one
which protects the rights and best interest of its citizens. Especially the well-being
of those who cannot advocate for themselves. What more vulnerable individual
exists requiring such protection than children? Children do always not have
powerful lobbies, flashy publications, and lawyers tripping over one another to
offer pro-bono services for their cause. Marriage is one primary method used by
government to protect and uphold the natural rights of children.
Each side of this debate argues on the case of someone’s “right.” Those in
favor of redefining marriage speak of the “right to marry” and “the right to
parenthood.” Unfortunately, rights have lost their true meaning. They are now
popularly employed as a label for anything that someone really, really wants. This
is simply desire-based reasoning, which is entirely incorrect. What I am
referencing here is true rights. Rights which cannot be given by government, but
which exist pre-government. Rights which are self-evident, as our founding
fathers would say.
When you look at a newborn – if there is no hospital chart or adults cooing
over her, cards from friends and family, a birth certificate in your hand - what do
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

6

you know about that child? What is absolutely undeniable just from that baby’s
existence? By counting her fingers and toes you cannot know her housing
situation, the number of siblings she has, her living conditions, what school she is
zoned for, or her access to food and water. What you know as you gaze at that
wondrous and precious child is that she IS. What did that require? It required that
nine months earlier a man and a woman came together to provide the ingredients
for her existence. That is all. Until the world starts to tell Baby Girl’s story for her
thorough whatever cultural or religious context she has been born into, there are
two things that are true about that child. Two things entitled to her because, just
because, she is crying and squirming and breathing and yawning. Two rights that
every child, EVERY child, shares when they arrive in this world.
First, the right to live. Second, the right to have a relationship with his/her
father and mother.
The law upholds the natural right of parents to have a direct, custodial
relationship with their offspring, provided they do not neglect or abuse them. In
fact, even a parent who does not wish to be involved in his/her child’s life is
required to help support that child financially.
Assistance programs and social service agencies - largely government-
funded - go to great lengths to keep families of origin together, even in less-than-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

7

ideal circumstances. Presumably, one could argue that some (even many) of these
children would be “better off” by certain objective measures if they were quickly
removed from their family of origin and placed for adoption. But the burden of
proof lies with the government to establish that parents are neglectful or abusive
before terminating their natural rights. Parents who wish to place children for
adoption must freely consent to having their natural rights terminated, and indeed
when this consent has been uninformed or deceptively obtained (or even just
regretted after the fact), heart-wrenching custody battles between biological and
adoptive parents have ensued.
Surely a parent’s right to be in a direct, custodial relationship with his/her
offspring lies not within the realm of property law, as if the child were something
owned. Rather, this right is a natural one that is universal and self-evident. The
child’s right to be in a direct, nurturing relationship with his/her parents is its
reciprocal. Children “belong” to their parents only to the extent that parents
“belong” to their children.
When a child loses their right to live, at least on this side of the womb, we
severely punish the perpetrator. The loss of that right is nothing that government
or any human agent will be able to repay or restore.
The same is true of the second right - the right to belong to one’s parents.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

8

Step back from the gay marriage debate for a moment and look at the lives
of children you know. Perhaps look at your own life. When a parent has been lost
because of death, abandonment, estrangement, or divorce there is harm. There is
pain. The child grieves, is angry, and mourns. Whether it is a longing to know the
mysterious missing half of one’s heritage or a life-long gaping wound, losing a
parent brings pain. It is a loss that cannot be restored by government or any human
agent. No mentor, teacher, grandparent, Head Start program or case worker can
take the place of that absent mother or father. Even if the parent resurfaces later in
life, each day that the parent was absent has been permanently lost.
This is how one gay father describes his daughter’s loss:
Sometimes when my daughter, who is 7, is nicely cuddled up in
her bed and I snuggle her, she calls me Mommy. I am a stay-at-home
dad. My male partner and I adopted both of our children at birth in
open domestic adoptions. We could fill our home with nannies,
sisters, grandmothers, female friends, but no mothers. My daughter
says “Mommy” in a funny way, in a high-pitched voice. Although I
refer the honors immediately to her birth mom, I am flattered. But
saddened as well, because she expresses herself in a voice that is not
her own. It is her stuffed-animal voice. She expresses not only love;
she also expresses alienation. She can role-play the mother-daughter
relationship, but she cannot use her real voice, nor have the real thing.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

9

Frank Ligtvoet, The Misnomer of ‘Motherless’ Parenting, N.Y. Times, June 22nd,
2013.
3

Why has there been a dramatic shift toward open adoption? Because there
has been a near-universal recognition that children benefit from having as many
connections with their family of origin as possible. It is why many states now
require that adoption records be open to children.
C. FAMILY STRUCTURE
To institutionalize something is not just to permit it, to “live and let live.”
With the redefinition of marriage, we are not simply allowing people to form
relationships of their choosing. They have been doing so for decades. I can assure
you that in the eighties and nineties, the community of women with whom I had
extensive contact were free to love whomever they chose to love. That has been
the case for decades in every place where gay sex has been decriminalized.
When we institutionalize same-sex marriage however, we move from
permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex
headed households. In doing so, we ignore the true nature of the outcropping of
marriage. Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be

3
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-misnomer-
of-motherless-parenting.html?_r=1& (last visited August 4th, 2014, as with all
other Internet links herein).
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

10

deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural
parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they
have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that
children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.
When marriage policy and cultural narrative deviates from the reality that
one man plus one woman makes a baby, we end up with scenarios such as the one
described by author Andrew Solomon:
“When I met John, who is now my husband, he told me that he had
had some friends, Tammy and Laura, for whom he had been a sperm
donor, and that they had a son named Oliver, of whom he was the
biological father. A few years later, they asked him to be a sperm
donor again, and they produced a daughter, Lucy. A good friend of
mine from college had gone through a divorce and said that she really
longed to be a mother, and I said how much I would love to be the
father of her child. And so we decided to produce a child through an
IVF process. John and I then wanted to have a child who would live
with us all the time, and we decided to use an egg donor, and Laura,
the lesbian who had carried Oliver and Lucy, offered to be our
surrogate as a way of thanking John for providing her with a family.
So the shorthand is: five parents of four children in three states. … ”
NPR Staff, What Happens When Kids Fall 'Far From The Tree', NPR Books,
Nov. 8th, 2012, 5:58 p.m.
4
(citation omitted).
This is truly human trafficking: manipulating children into existence to satisfy
the desires of adults. In Andrew Solomon’s “post-nuclear” family, as he calls it,
the four children living in three states were conceived with the intent to separate

4
http://m.npr.org/news/Books/163468489.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

11

them from one of their biological parents, see id. The desires of the five adults
were satisfied. The rights of the four children - to be known and raised by their
biological parents - were not.
The UN gets this one exactly right. Their Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1989), Article 7, states, “The child shall be registered immediately after
birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality
and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” Id.
§ 1. The right to something that you cannot produce yourself is no right at all. As
soon as a homosexual couple can produce a child without any assistance from
others, than they absolutely have a right to have a child and the right to marry.
It is not just about a child's rights, though that should be enough for any
court, political initiative or piece of legislation. It is also a question of the child
thriving. Beyond the superficial stereotypes, gender is a real phenomenon. There
are unique, complementary, and demonstrable differences between men and
women in parenthood. As children age, they benefit from daily interactions with
their father and mother. Even during infancy, studies have shown that children
respond differently to male and female faces and voices.
For those who feel that there is no significant difference between men and
women in a child’s life, I hope that they would take that philosophy into every
other area of human interaction. They should not object to an all-male Supreme
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

12

Court because women, after all, do not offer a unique perspective. We should not
care if a low-income school district has all female teachers because strong male
role models are unnecessary. And, if all of that is true, I expect to see our
President surrounded by an all-female secret security entourage.
The reality is that to say gender makes no meaningful difference in any
scenario is silly. I am shocked when someone makes the case that genderless
marriage will not affect the most vital societal import of all - child development.
Children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their mother and father.
And if those parents are incapable of providing proper care of the child? The most
appropriate approximation of the family unit is their right; a male and female
union.
We have all the social evidence needed to authenticate the truth that children
need both sexes represented in their parentage. When a child is raised outside of
an intact family, specifically without the involvement of their father, we see that
the likelihood that they will be incarcerated skyrockets, they perform poorly in
school, live in poverty, fall victim to trafficking, are sexually active at an early age
and experience both poor physical and mental health. Fathers and mothers are
staples in the diet of emotional food that children require. Without one or the other,
they are emotionally malnourished.

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

13

RESPONSES TO COMMON OBJECTIONS
I. I am not saying that same-sex attraction makes you a bad parent. My
mother was an exceptional parent. She modeled self-sacrifice, healthy
communication, and was continually nurturing and involved. I never
went through a phase where I was ashamed of her or her partner. Not
even that morning when I was cornered by a crowd of girls who were
taunting me for having “two moms.” I am grateful that both my
mother and her partner are involved in my children’s lives.
Conversely, being heterosexual does not a good parent make.
Parenting is a skill that gay or straight can learn.
II. I am not saying that those in same-sex relationships are incapable of
commitment or fidelity. My mother and her partner could hold a clinic
on both of those. Fidelity and commitment are daily choices that
homosexual and heterosexual couples must make.
III. Some object, “But marriage has never been about children, because
many heterosexual marriages don’t produce children.” If that is the
case, then why have some gay marriage advocates sought, bought,
and/or trumpeted the “studies” which are aimed at “proving” that
children do not suffer any ill effects by being systematically separated
from a natural parent? Why then are many gay marriage supporters so
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

14

quick to point out that gay couples are, in fact, raising children
together, apparently as a means of demonstrating the suitability of
same-sex relationships for the institution of marriage and driving
home the moral necessity of legally recognizing their relationships? If
marriage isn’t about children, who cares?

If they are right, that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and one
or the other is unnecessary, then perhaps Hollywood should make
another Parent Trap. In the iconic 1961 film (directed by David
Smith; Walt Disney Productions), see id., twin sisters Sharon and
Susan meet a summer camp and realize that they were separated
shortly after they were born. In the wake of their parents’ divorce,
Sharon went to live with her mother in Boston and Susan went to live
with her father in California. Both girls, each longing to meet the
parent they never knew, devise an elaborate scheme to switch places
and ultimately reunite their parents so that they are separated no
longer. There was a remake of The Parent Trap in 1998 (directed by
Nancy Meyers; Walt Disney Pictures). While changing minor details,
see id., they maintained the heart-pulling storyline of children longing
to be reunited with their lost parent which so strongly connected with
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

15

1960s audiences. My children, when watching the more recent
movie, were tearful when the girls’ parents got remarried. My
daughter turned to me and remarked how happy she was that Sharon
could be with her daddy now.
If we were to remake that universally-appealing plot according to the
ideas and assertions put forward by some in the gay-marriage lobby,
we would tell Sharon to stay in Boston because her longing to be
known by her father is invalid. She is actually very happy only
knowing her mother. She is wrong to want a relationship with her
father. We tell Susan that she doesn’t need her mom either. She is
perfectly happy with only her father regardless of what her heart tells
her. We tell them both that their feelings are illogical and unfounded.

For that matter, we should tell every child who has an absent parent
through death, divorce, abandonment or third-party reproduction that
their sense of loss is illogical. Have you met any of those kids? Are
they unaffected by the loss of their parent? Truth is, you will not find
a child in those gay-marriage affirming “studies” that have come to
their same-sex parents through any means other than death, divorce,
abandonment, or third-party reproduction. And yet the “studies”
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

16

show no ill effects? These are quite obviously mutually exclusive
outcomes.
IV. But what about the childless heterosexual couple? Does it follow then
that they cannot be married? Again, we need to take our cues from the
self-evident. Not every heterosexual union can or will produce a
child. But every child has a mother and father. If marriage is a child-
centric institution, then we do right by children when public policy
reflects this biological reality. Children are made by a man and a
woman. In the optimal scenario, they are also raised by them. As a
society, we should make policy to reflect that reality. The ideal.
V. Some argue that two loving and caring men make a better home than a
drug-addicted single mom. What fool would disagree with that? I
actually traveled internationally with two women who were willing to
adopt a girl with special needs. Those two dear women were game to
take on a child that no heterosexual couple in her home country, or
ours really, would adopt. Clearly, that child will have a far better life
with my friends than in an under-staffed, under-funded foreign
institution.
But let’s be clear, in the above scenarios we are talking about degrees
of brokenness. For the child, there is no such thing as an “intact”
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 23 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

17

home when they are in a same-sex headed household. To join that
household they must lose one or both natural parents. Just because in
a few cases a child who has found themselves in a horrific situation
would be better off with two parents of the same gender does not
necessitate writing out of civil code the right to a relationship with
one’s natural parents. Just like the children I know who are being
raised by their aunt and uncle because their parents neglected them.
Or the grandparents who are raising their grandson because his mother
is an addict. Or the child who is being raised by her single mother
because her father broke both of her mother’s legs and now the two
are constantly moving to stay away from him. Brokenness finds
children and the people in their lives do their best to pick up the
pieces. However, we do not institutionalize, incentivize or promote
the grandparent-headed household, the aunt-and-uncle-headed
household or the single-parent headed household. Why? Because
public policy should not encourage or endorse the breaking of the
parent/child relationship because a couple, or “throuple” (three
persons) wants to have a family. Children are entitled to parents. Not
the other way around.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 24 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

18

VI. “But what about the hardship that many LGBTQ people have
suffered?” I understand and lament the personal and emotional
challenges that many same-sex attracted people have faced in their
lives. I grieve over the decades that some have spent “closeted” or
feeling as though they could not be honest about their inner turmoil or
attraction. The way to right those wrongs is throw open our hearts and
homes to our gay family and friends. It is to hire people based on
their experience, qualifications and education and not their sexual
orientation/attractions. It is to include them in our activities, parties,
and Thanksgiving dinners. It is to give them the freedom to establish
relationships and communities of their choosing. But the remedy does
not lie in eliminating the rights of children.
VII. Other threats to child rights: I am not so naïve as to say that gay
marriage is the biggest or only threat to children having access to their
mother and father. Pre-marital sex, cohabitation and divorce are
statistically a greater risk to children. But please note that there are no
wide-spread efforts to institutionalize, glamorize and legally
incentivize those family arrangements. Frankly, if there were? I
would oppose them too.

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 25 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

19

VIII. “Marriage should just be about adult emotional bonds.” If marriage is
for adults, then what institution is for children? Maybe your answer is
public education. The problem is that a student who isn’t having their
emotional needs met at home is more likely to flounder in school, as
any teacher will attest. But if you get the family right, then you get a
higher likelihood of academic health thrown in with the deal. In fact,
a married “intact” home is the single greatest weapon that society has
in the fight to lower incarceration rates, to reduce the number of
children living in poverty, curtail child trafficking, promote mental
and physical child wellness, and so on.
* * *
If society’s interest in marriage is children, then why are we promoting a
family structure where a child would have to be denied a relationship with their
mother or father so the adults can have the “family” they desire? Why, if some
believe that they are “born gay,” do many in the gay lobby seek to legally sever the
much more self-evident truth that children are “born” to both a mother and father?
Why, if one popular gay-marriage mantra is that they do not want the government
to tell them “who to love,” would they tell children that being loved by one of their
natural parents is unnecessary?
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 26 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 26 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

20

Should you choose to redefine marriage and promote a family structure that
necessitates the permanent loss of the rights of children, what counter-balancing
measures will you take? How many laws will you have to write to ensure that
children will not be systematically separated from the natural order of parenthood
in order to satisfy the desires of adults? Will you outlaw third-party reproduction?
Will you compel adoption agencies to consider gender as one qualification for
adoptive couples? Will you state that despite the newly redefined institution of
marriage, that children should not be separated from their natural parents except in
extreme cases of abuse or neglect?
Or will you possibly recognize that you cannot have it both ways? Truth is,
you cannot redefine marriage AND recognize that fathers and mothers are both
critical to a child’s rights and children’s flourishing. What you will find yourself
doing is political double-speak as President Obama did in a speech last February.
Our President, who intimately understands the pain of fatherlessness, first said that
“there’s no more important ingredient for success… than strong, stable families,
which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.”
USA Today, Obama speaks on importance of fatherhood, The Oval blog, Feb.
17th, 2013, 9:50 a.m.
5
But because he has now “evolved” on the subject of gay

5
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/17/obama-chicago-fatherhood-
economy-gun-control/1925727/.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 27 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

21

marriage, he had to add that “loving, supportive parents” can include gay and
straight parents. So how do you “promote marriage and encourage fatherhood”
when some marriages exclude fathers? You can’t. You can either believe that
fathers and mothers are valuable and children have a right to both, or, you can
redefine marriage to promote a family structure where a father or mother will never
be present. Period. When gay couples have “equal access” to the institution of
marriage it means that children will not have “equal access” to parents influencing
and raising them the way nature intended.
You must either side with adult desires or side with children’s rights. You
cannot do both.
The choice is yours. Thank you.
CONCLUSION
I respectfully ask the Court to reverse the judgment of the court below; and
humbly thank the Court for its time and consideration.
August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
s/David Boyle
P.O. Box 15143
Long Beach, CA 90815
(734) 904-6132
dbo@boyleslaw.org
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Katy Faust

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 28 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 28 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that he electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by
using the appellate CM/ECF system on August 4, 2014.
He also certifies that all parties or their counsel of record will be served through
the CM/ECF system if they are registered CM/ECF users:
Jonathan F. Mitchell
Kyle D. Highful
Beth Klusmann
Michael P. Murphy
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 936-1700

Barry Alan Chasnoff
Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr.
Matthew Edwin Pepping
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
300 Convent Street, Suite 1600
NationsBank Plaza
San Antonio, TX 78205
Jessica M. Weisel
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
2029 Century Park, E., Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-0000
Michael P. Cooley
Andrew Forest Newman
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 29 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 29 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

23

1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100
Dallas, TX 75204
August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
s/David Boyle
P.O. Box 15143
Long Beach, CA 90815
(734) 904-6132
dbo@boyleslaw.org
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Katy Faust

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC COMPLIANCE

The undersigned also certifies that on August 4, 2014, this brief was transmitted
to Mr. Lyle W. Cayce, Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, via the court’s CM/ECF document filing system, https://ecf.ca5.uscourts.
gov/.
The undersigned further certifies that: (1) required privacy redactions have been
made, 5th Cir. R. 25.2.13, if any in fact were needed; (2) the electronic submission
is an exact copy of the paper document, 5th Cir. R. 25.2.1; and (3) the document
has been scanned with the most recent version of McAfee Anti-Virus and Anti-
Spyware 16.8 and as per that program is free of viruses.
s/David Boyle

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 30 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 30 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

24

FORM 6. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)
Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation,
Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of FED. R. APP. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because:
X this brief contains 4846 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by
FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or
□ this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains [state the number of] lines
of text, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(5)
and the type style requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because:
X this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using 2010
Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman font, or
□ this brief has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using [state name and
version of word processing program] with [state number of characters per inch and
name of type style].
s/David Boyle
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 31 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 31 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

25

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Katy Faust
Dated: August 4, 2014
Thank you for your time.


Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 32 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 32 Date Filed: 09/15/2014
United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK

LYLE W. CAYCE
CLERK





TEL. 504-310-7700
600 S. MAESTRI PLACE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

September 15, 2014



Mr. David Christopher Boyle
P.O. Box 15143
Long Beach, CA 90815


No. 14-50196 Cleopatra DeLeon, et al v. Rick Perry, et al
USDC No. 5:13-CV-982



Dear Mr. Boyle,

You must submit the seven (7) paper copies of your brief required
by 5
TH
CIR. R. 31.1 within five (5) days of the date of this notice
pursuant to 5th Cir. ECF Filing Standard E.1.

Failure to timely provide the appropriate number of copies may
result in the dismissal of your appeal pursuant to 5
TH
CIR. R. 42.3.

**You must electronically file a "Form for Appearance of Counsel"
within 14 days from this date. You must name each party you
represent, see FED R. APP. P. 12(b) and 5
TH
CIR. R. 12 & 46.3. The
form is available from the Fifth Circuit's website,
www.ca5.uscourts.gov. If you fail to electronically file the form,
the brief will be stricken and returned unfiled.



Sincerely,

LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk

By: _________________________
Renee S. McDonough, Deputy Clerk
504-310-7673

cc:
Mr. Ralph Joseph Aucoin Sr.
Mr. Richard Arthur Bordelon
Mr. Barry Alan Chasnoff
Mr. Michael P. Cooley
Ms. Deborah Jane Dewart
Mr. Stuart Kyle Duncan
Mr. William C. Duncan
Mr. Thomas Molnar Fisher
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2014
Mr. Steven W. Fitschen
Mr. Steven James Griffin
Mr. Robert Smead Hogan
Mr. Lawrence John Joseph
Mr. Jon Roy Ker
Ms. Beth Ellen Klusmann
Mr. Daniel McNeel Lane Jr.
Ms. Mary Elizabeth McAlister
Mr. Jonathan F. Mitchell
Mr. Michael P. Murphy
Mr. Andrew Forest Newman
Mr. David Robert Nimocks
Mr. Leif A. Olson
Mr. Matthew Edwin Pepping
Mr. Eric C. Rassbach
Mr. David Robinson
Mr. Dean John Sauer
Mr. Michael Francis Smith
Mr. Kevin Trent Snider
Ms. Anita Leigh Staver
Mr. Mathew D. Staver
Dr. David Robert Upham
Ms. Jessica M. Weisel
Mr. Robert Paul Wilson
Mr. Russell Henry Withers
Ms. Cecilia M. Wood

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768196 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2014