Catholic Answers in Support of Respondents ------ ------Charles S
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., Petitioners, v. RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- VALERIA TANCO, et al., Petitioners, v. BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TN, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- APRIL DEBOER, et al., Petitioners, v. RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MI, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- GREGORY BOURKE, et al., Petitioners, v. STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KY, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CATHOLIC ANSWERS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CHARLES S. LIMANDRI Counsel of Record PAUL M. JONNA JEFFREY M. TRISSELL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND P.O. Box 9520 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 (858) 759-9948 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae Catholic Answers April 2, 2015 ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case concerns whether the People have the right to define “marriage” or whether the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution removes that right from them. For the most part, the People have defined “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman. They have chosen that definition of marriage because of a deference to traditional wis- dom, and because of sound, contemporary arguments. Recently, various individuals have sought to change several aspects of the definition of “marriage.” In some States, the People agreed with them, and in other States, the People preferred the traditional def- inition of marriage. At the heart of the redefinition attempts was the argument that the traditional def- inition of marriage violated the dignity of sexual mi- norities. In States where the People did not find that argument compelling, it changed into the argument that the traditional definition of marriage was being maintained for the purpose of violating the dignity of sexual minorities. This is simply not the case. The People’s desire to preserve the traditional definition of marriage is neither inspired by animus nor bigotry. It is a choice made by informed and engaged individ- uals who seek to strike a balance between preserving the rights of religious believers while also promoting the dignity of sexual minorities. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED – Continued The questions presented are: 1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully li- censed and performed out-of-state? iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iv STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ............................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................... 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 5 A. Sexual Orientation Does Not Fit Within The Equal Protection Jurisprudence Frame- work .............................................................. 5 B. Religious Liberty Is A Fundamental Right That, When Properly Respected, Broadly Protects The Personal Duty To Live One’s Faith ............................................................. 9 C. A Broad And Fundamental Conflict Exists Between Religious Liberty And Sexual Orientation Protections ............................... 14 D. Recognizing Sexual Orientation As A Sus- pect Class Will Legally Undermine The Ability Of Many Religious People To Live Their Faiths ................................................. 26 1. Exclusion from the Public Square ........ 30 2. Encroachment on Private Liberty ........ 33 3. Defining Millions of Religious Believ- ers as Bigots ........................................... 36 CONCLUSION ....................................................... 39 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES SUPREME COURT Adarand Constr., Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) ....................................................................... 26 Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) ........................... 2 Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587 (1987) ....................... 8 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) .......................................... 7, 8, 27, 29 Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988) ............................ 26 Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) ................................................................ 13 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) ........................... 29 Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Sec., 489 U.S. 829 (1989) ........................................................ 19 Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012) ............ 11, 13 McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978) ...................... 38 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) ................................ 8 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ..................... 7, 26 Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commis- sion, 513 U.S. 979 (1994) ........................................ 31 Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981) .......... 19 United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)............. 19 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) .... passim Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) .......... 29 West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) ....................................................................... 38 CIRCUIT COURT American Family Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002) ................ 20 Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 704 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................ 34 Bostic v. Shaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) ...... 2, 27 Boy Scouts of Am. v. Wyman, 335 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................................. 32 Canyon Ferry Baptist Church of E. Helena v. Unsworth, 556 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) ......... 10, 12 Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................... 12, 20 DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) ..... 2, 27 Dixon v. Univ. of Toledo, 702 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 20 Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................. 21 Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 20 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 2, 27 Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Hu- man Srvs., 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) ................. 2, 27 Morrison v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd Cnty., 521 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2008) .......................................... 21 Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) ............. 21 Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................... 35 Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 855 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. 1988) .................................... 31 SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014) ......... 2, 27 Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commis- sion, 165 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................... 31 Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commis- sion, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................... 31 Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2012) .............. 20 Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. No. 204, 636 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2011) .................................... 21 DISTRICT COURT Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of Am., 275 F.Supp.2d 1259 (S.D. Cal. 2003) ............................. 34 Gadling-Cole v. West Chester Univ., 868 F.Supp.2d 390 (E.D. Pa. 2012) ................................ 35 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Hansen v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 293 F.Supp.2d 780 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ............................................. 21 Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013) ................................................................. 2 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................. 18, 19 Slater v. Douglas Cnty., 743 F.Supp.2d 1188 (D. Or. 2010) .................................................................. 36 STATE COURTS Attorney Gen. v. Desilets, 636 N.E.2d 233 (Mass. 1994) ............................................................ 31 Cochran v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, No. 1:15- cv-00477-LMM (N.D. Ga., Feb. 18, 2015) .............. 21 Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 284 P.3d 428 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) ........................................ 19 Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock,