In the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn the Supreme Court of the United States
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, ET AL.,
Petitioners
, v.
KRISTIN M. PERRY, ET AL.,
Respondents
.
UNITED STATES,
Petitioner
, v.
EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY ASEXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER,
AND
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OFTHE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Respondents
.
On Writs of Certiorari to the United StatesCourts of Appeals for the Ninth and Second Circuits
BRIEF OF
AMICUS CURIAE
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT KRISTIN M.PERRY AND RESPONDENT EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR
Becker Gallagher
·
Cincinnati, OH
·
Washington, D.C.
·
800.890.5001
N
OS
. 12-144, 12-307
Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. (Counsel of Record)Scott ThompsonMark LightnerCLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLPOne Liberty PlazaNew York, NY 10006(212) 225-2000
cboccuzzi@cgsh.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Sociological Association
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................iiINTEREST OF
AMICUS CURIAE
.............1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..................2 ARGUMENT...............................6I.SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS IS CLEAR:CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX PARENTS FAREJUST AS WELL AS CHILDREN OFOPPOSITE-SEX PARENTS................6II.THE RESEARCH CLAIMED TO UNDERMINETHE CONSENSUS EITHER DOES NOT ADDRESS SAME-SEX PARENTS AND THEIRCHILDREN OR IS MISCHARACTERIZED..15 A.THE REGNERUS STUDY DOES NOTSUPPORT CONCLUSIONS REGARDINGTHE IMPACT OF BEING RAISED BY SAME-SEX PARENTS.................16B.THE STUDIES CITED BY BLAG, THEPROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS, ANDTHEIR
AMICI
DO NOT ADDRESS SAME-SEX PARENTS AND THEREFORE DO NOTUNDERMINE THE CONSENSUS.......22CONCLUSION............................31
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Atkins v. Virginia
, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).......................5
Craig v. Boren
, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)......................29
Perry v. Brown
, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012),
cert. granted
, 133S. Ct. 786 (U.S. 2012)......................4
Perry v. Schwarzenegger
, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010),
aff’d
, 671F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012),
cert. granted
, 133 S.Ct. 786 (U.S. 2012) ..................
passim Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)....................5, 29
Romer v. Evans
, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).......................2
Roper v. Simmons
,
548 U.S 551 (2005)........................5
Varnum v. Brien
, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)...............27