DOCSLIB.ORG

How DOMA, State Marriage Amendments, and Social Conservatives Undermine Traditional Marriage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How DOMA, State Marriage Amendments, and Social Conservatives Undermine Traditional Marriage Volume 115 Issue 1 Article 13 September 2012 The Reactionary Road to Free Love: How DOMA, State Marriage Amendments, and Social Conservatives Undermine Traditional Marriage Scott Titshaw Mercer University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Scott Titshaw, The Reactionary Road to Free Love: How DOMA, State Marriage Amendments, and Social Conservatives Undermine Traditional Marriage, 115 W. Va. L. Rev. (2012). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol115/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Titshaw: The Reactionary Road to Free Love: How DOMA, State Marriage Amend THE REACTIONARY ROAD TO FREE LOVE: HOW DOMA, STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS, AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES UNDERMINE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE Scott Titshaw* Much has been written about the possible effects on different-sex marriage of legally recognizing same-sex marriage. This Article looks at the defense of marriage from a different angle: It shows how rejecting same-sex marriage results in political compromise and the proliferation of "marriage light" alternatives (e.g., civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries) that undermine the unique status of marriage for everyone. After describing the flexibility of marriage as it has evolved over time, the Article focuses on recent state constitutional amendments attempting to stop further development. It categorizes and analyzes the amendments, showing that most allow marriage light experimentation. It also explains why ambiguous marriage amendments should be read narrowly. It contrasts these amendments with foreign constitutional provisions aimed at different-sex marriages, revealing that the American amendments reflect anti-gay animus. But they also reflect fear of change. This Article gives reasons to fear the failure to change. Comparing American and European marriage alternatives reveals that they all have distinct advantages over traditional marriage. The federal Defense of Marriage Act adds even more. Unlike same-sex marriage, these alternatives are attractive to different-sex couples. This may explain why marriage light * Associate Professor at Mercer University School of Law. I'd like to thank Professors Kerry Abrams, Tedd Blumoff, Johanna Bond, Beth Burkstrand-Reid, Patricia A. Cain, Jessica Feinberg, David Hricik, Linda Jellum, Joseph Landau, Joan MacLeod Hemmingway, David Oedel, Jack Sammons, Karen Sneddon, Mark Strasser, Kerri Stone, and Robin F. Wilson for their helpful comments. I also thank Melanie Bruchet, Tiffany Gardner, and Cora Tench for excellent research assistance. Ben Cooper, Chris Green, Dean Richard Gershon, and their colleagues provided useful comments when I presented an early version of this paper at the University of Mississippi School of Law. This paper also benefitted from audiences at the 2011 Southeastern Association of Law Schools New Scholars Workshop, and particularly Professor Barbara Cox, who mentored me and offered excellent suggestions. I thank Mercer University School of Law and Dean Gary Simson for their confidence and the summer stipend that enabled me to write this article. Dean Simson's insights and suggestions were also invaluable. Finally, I'd like to thank Robert Bush and Greg Nevins for their useful comments on this article and for all of the extraordinary work they and their colleagues do at Georgia Legal Services and Lambda Legal. Of course, any mistakes and opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own. 205 Disseminated by The Research Repository @ WVU, 2012 1 West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 115, Iss. 1 [2012], Art. 13 206 WEST VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 115 regimes increasingly extend to all couples, and why these gender-neutral marriage alternatives--once established-tend to be permanent. In the end, all couples could be left with cafeteria options for legal relationship recognition. This may be a good solution, but it is certainly not a conservative one. I. INTRODUCTION............................................... 207 II. KULTURKAMPF USA: THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGE .................................................. 215 A. A Brief History of the Evolving Institution of Marriage................ 217 B. The Movement for Covenant Marriage................... 221 C. The Debate Over Same-Sex MarriageEquality....... ...... 226 1. The Gay and Feminist Debate About Same-Sex Marriage......228 2. The Conservative Debate About Same-Sex Marriage.............230 3. Same-Sex Marriage Recognition Is a Conservative Move......239 D. The Movement for Same-Sex Marriage in the JnitedStates.........245 III. FOREVER FROZEN IN 2004: THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT STRATEGY ........................................................ 249 A. ConstitutionalAmendments ProtectingMarriage in Germany and Hungary ................................ ..... 250 B. Anti-Gay American ConstitutionalAmendments ....... ....... 255 1. Four Categories of Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments and the Likely Effects of Each......................................258 2. Three Reasons for Construing "Dead Hand" Marriage Amendments Narrowly .................... ....... 263 IV. COMPARING MARRIAGE LIGHT ALTERNATIVES FOR BOTH SAME- AND DIFFERENT-SEX COUPLES ........................... ....... 267 A. MarriageLight in Europe ............................ 269 B. U.S. State Experiments with MarriageLight................................. 274 C. The Lightest Option-CohabitationWithout Registration.............280 V. THE LIKELY PROLIFERATION OF MARRIAGE LIGHT OPTIONS FOR ALL COUPLES ........................................... ..... 283 A. The PoliticalCalculus in Favor of MarriageLight.......................283 B. Advantages of MarriageAlternatives for Couples with a Choice.......................... ............... 286 C. How DOMA Makes MarriageLight Options More Attractive ...... 289 D. Different-Sex Couples Are IncreasinglyLikely to be Eligible for MarriageLight............................292 E. How ConstitutionalMarriage Amendments Lead to the Proliferationof MarriageLight Alternativesfor Everyone........... 294 F. Once Established,Gender-Neutral Marriage Light Is Likely to Last ........................................... 298 VI. CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 301 https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol115/iss1/13 2 Titshaw: The Reactionary Road to Free Love: How DOMA, State Marriage Amend 2012] THE REACTIONARY ROAD TO FREE LOVE 207 I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriagebecause I'm a Conservative. -David Cameron' I. INTRODUCTION Opponents of same-sex marriage are destroying traditional marriage, not defending it as they claim. 2 This may sound odd in terms of the current marriage debate. Yet, it becomes obvious if one takes a step back to view the struggle in context. Because there are at least as many proponents as opponents of same- sex marriage, the standoff tends to result in a compromise recognizing some form of marriage light. 311This trend toward legal alternatives to marriage is amplified by traditionalist support of covenant marriage options and-at least for now-by the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"). 4 It is virtually ensured by the strategy of amending state constitutions, which forestalls the marriage option for future generations and invites experimentation with marriage light alternatives. And once gender-neutral marriage light is established, it is resilient. In the end, all couples could be left with cafeteria options for legal relationship recognition. As British Prime Minister David Cameron has recognized, marriage is conservative, and its nature does not change when it is extended to same-sex couples.' Some progressive activists agree. Since at least the 1950s, some supporters of gay and lesbian equality have rejected advocacy of same-sex marriage because it could shore up the conservative institution of marriage I Tim Ross, Archbishop Attacks Cameron's "Gay Marriage" Plan, DAILY TELEGRAPH (U.K.) (Oct. 5, 2011), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8809548/Archbishop-attacks- Camerons-gay-marriage-plan.html. 2 While there are good reasons to doubt this claimed motivation in many cases, see infra Part VI, this Article is concerned with those who sincerely care about defending marriage more than disapproving of lesbians and gay men. Hopefully, it will convince some that their opposition to same-sex marriage is shortsighted and counterproductive. In the process, it provides a new take on several broader legal questions in the marriage debate. See infra Part V.A (describing this political calculation); see also infra pp. 209-209 (defining "marriage light"). 4 Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-100, §3(a), 110 Stat. 2419 (2006) (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 (2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (2006)). While the federal definition of marriage in DOMA may soon be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, see Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (holding that DOMA violated equal protection principles, and thus was unconstitutional), petition for cert. filed, 81 U.S.L.W. 3006 (July 20, 2012) (No. 12-97), DOMA remains in effect as of the publication
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ISOJ 2018: Day 2, Morning Keynote Speaker KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Ben Smith
    ISOJ 2018: Day 2, Morning Keynote Speaker KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Ben Smith Chair: Evan Smith, CEO and Co-Founder, Texas Tribune Keynote Speaker: Ben Smith, Editor-in-Chief, BuzzFeed Ben Smith: Thank you. Thank you for the kind words, Evan. Thanks so much for having me. The downside to not having a PowerPoint presentation is I’m going to stand under this giant picture of myself for five or ten minutes before Evan turns on me. And you know, we’ve talked a little about…. I think I’m just sort of giving a brief intro to how BuzzFeed went from being the world’s leading cat website to doing some journalism that I hope speaks for itself. And I think we are—we remain the world’s leading cat website as well. But we don’t—we don’t shy away from that, but I think that, at this point, the journalism really does speak for itself. And you can read that or watch that story elsewhere. And in particular, we’ve been on a run lately that I feel really good about. If I can boast a little, we broke the “Growth at Any Cost” Facebook memo the other week, and Christopher Steele’s other report on an alleged murder in Washington. And the third big story that we broke just in the last couple of weeks was the one that I thought, for this audience who pays a lot of attention to journalism and to how information travels online, would just be sort of interesting in talking about for a few minutes, because it’s something that I’ve been really troubled by and have been wrestling with over the last couple of weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • February 26, 2020 Chairman David Skaggs Co-Chairwoman Allison
    February 26, 2020 Chairman David Skaggs Co-Chairwoman Allison Hayward Office of Congressional Ethics 425 3rd Street, SW Suite 1110 Washington, DC 20024 Dear Chairman Skaggs and Co-Chairwoman Hayward: We write to request that the Office of Congressional Ethics (“OCE”) investigate whether Representative Devin Nunes is receiving free legal services in violation of the Rules of the House of Representatives (“House rules”). Specifically, Representative Nunes retained an attorney who represents him in several defamation lawsuits in various courts where he seeks a total of nearly $1 billion in damages. House rules prohibit a Member from receiving free legal services, unless the Member establishes a Legal Expense Fund (“LEF”). According to the House Legislative Resource Center, Representative Nunes has not filed any of the required reports to establish an LEF. The relevant facts detailed below establish that the OCE Board should authorize an investigation of Representative Nunes. Representative Nunes’s overt involvement with the highly-publicized lawsuits threatens to establish a precedent that the Legal Expense Fund (“LEF”) regulations no longer apply to Members. Although Representative Nunes is entitled to legal representation and he may pursue any legal action to protect and defend his interests, he must comply with House rules. An OCE investigation will preserve Representative Nunes’s legal right to counsel while upholding well-established House rules and precedent. House Rules Prohibit Members from Receiving Discounted or Free Legal Services A Member of the House of Representatives “may not knowingly accept a gift” with limited exceptions.1 A “gift” is defined to include “a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of in Re Marriage Cases (2010), Available At
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 6-1-2010 Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The tS ory of In re Marriage Cases Jean C. Love Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Patricia A. Cain Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Law Commons Automated Citation Jean C. Love and Patricia A. Cain, Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The Story of In re Marriage Cases (2010), Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/617 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The Story of In re Marriage Cases Patricia A. Cain and Jean C. Love ―Whatever is a reality today, whatever you touch and believe in and that seems real for you today, is going to be — like the reality of yesterday — an illusion tomorrow.‖1 On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California handed down its decision in the much awaited litigation officially known as In re Marriage Cases.2 The case was actually a consolidation of six individual cases, all raising the same issue: Is denial of marriage to same-sex couples valid under the California Constitution? These six cases, as with Pirandello‘s six characters in search of an author, took center stage for a time, not in a real theater, but rather in the evolving drama over extending equal marriage rights to gay men and lesbians.
    [Show full text]
  • Preservationism, Or the Elephant in the Room: How Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Deceive Us Into Establishing Religion
    19_WILSON.DOC 2/8/2007 2:11 PM PRESERVATIONISM, OR THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: HOW OPPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECEIVE US INTO ESTABLISHING RELIGION JUSTIN T. WILSON* “People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.” –Jamin Raskin, Professor of Law, American University, in testimony before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................562 I. DEFINING “MARRIAGE”........................................................................................567 A. A Brief History and Overview................................................................567 B. The Establishment Clause and Our Religious Heritage......................576 II. A PRIMER ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT AND ITS KIN..................586 A. What Are Same-Sex Marriage Bans and What Do They Do? .............586 B. Who Supports the FMA? .........................................................................592 III. WHERE ARE WE GOING, AND WHY ARE WE IN THIS HANDBASKET?: A SHIFT IN FUNDAMENTAL(IST) RHETORIC .............................................................597 A. The Theoretical Underpinnings of Preservationism............................599 B. Preservationism: An Application ...........................................................602 IV. MODERN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE: “HOPELESS DISARRAY” ............................................................................................................604
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of Columbia
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUZZFEED, INC. and BEN SMITH, Plaintiffs, Case No. v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20530 MOTION TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION LAW Office of General Counsel 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20535-0001 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Office of General Counsel 1500 Tysons McLean Drive McLean, VA 22102 JAMES COMEY c/o FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Office of General Counsel 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20535-0001 and JAMES CLAPPER c/o OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Office of General Counsel 1500 Tysons McLean Drive McLean, VA 22102 Defendants. 4831-3301-6910v.8 0100812-000009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................2 I. THE DOSSIER AND THE FLORIDA LITIGATION ................................2 A. The Dossier ........................................................................................2 B. The Publication of Buzzfeed’s Article with the Dossier ...................3 C. The Official Briefings ........................................................................4 D. Official Investigations of the Dossier and its Contents .....................7 E. The Florida Litigation ........................................................................9 II. MOVANTS’
    [Show full text]
  • Spring / Summer 2018 Newsletter [PDF]
    California Supreme Court Historical Society newsletter · spring/ summer 2018 THE MARRIAGE CASES AN INSIDER’S PERSPECTIVE TEN YEARS LATER The Story of In re Marriage Cases: Our Supreme Court’s Role in Establishing Marriage Equality in California By Justice Therese M. Stewart* Therese M. Stewart, then of the Office of the San Francisco City Attorney, prepares to speak at a press conference after arguing in support of marriage equality before the California Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 25, 2004. AP Photo / Jeff Chiu t a few minutes before 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, traffic we knew it was receiving. After what felt like an May 15, 2008, attorneys who had worked for eternity, we heard a sound in the distance that seemed ASan Francisco litigating In re Marriage Cases1 like cheering. We wondered whether the anti-marriage were assembled in my City Hall office. We trolled the equality forces waiting at the courthouse had the num- California Supreme Court’s website as we waited for the bers to make such a sound carry all the way across the decision we’d been promised would be forthcoming, plaza. We were confident the pro-marriage forces did. in a notice posted by the Court the day before. Some Still, we wanted a firmer answer than that. We couldn’t were optimistic, others apprehensive. I felt butterflies immediately access the opinion online and the waiting below my ribcage, nearer to my heart than my stom- became almost unbearable. Finally, the phone rang, and ach. Dennis Herrera, my boss and the San Francisco I answered it.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Supreme Court Holds First Amendment Shields Westboro Baptist Military Funeral Protesters from Tort Liability
    LESBIAN/GAY LAW NOTES April 2011 49 U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDS FIRST AMENDMENT SHIELDS WESTBORO BAPTIST MILITARY FUNERAL PROTESTERS FROM TORT LIABILITY A majority of the Supreme Court of the dismissed Snyder’s claims for defama- public matters was intended to mask an at- United States has held that members of tion and publicity given to private life, and tack on Snyder over a private matter.” Rob- the Westboro Baptist Church, who regu- held a trial on the remaining claims. A jury erts held that Westboro’s message “cannot larly protest military funerals holding found for Snyder on the remaining claims be restricted simply because it is upsetting signs bearing slogans expressing their dis- and held Westboro liable for $2.0 million or arouses contempt” and concluded that approval of America’s tolerance of homo- in compensatory damages and $8.0 mil- the jury verdict imposing tort liability on sexuality, such as “God Hates Fags,” “Fag lion in punitive damages; the trial court Westboro for intentional infliction of emo- Troops,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” later remitted the punitive damages award tional distress must be set aside. and “America is Doomed,” was shielded by to $2.1 million. Westboro appealed to the Justice Roberts also rejected Snyder’s ar- the First Amendment from tort liability for 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held gument that he was “a member of a captive causing extreme emotional distress to the that Westboro was entirely shielded from audience at his son’s funeral,” stating that father of an Iraq war veteran when they liability by the First Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Rewriting J-School
    SPRING 2014 VOL. 68 NO. 2 Rewriting J-School Can educators connect the classroom to the newsroom? RAY WHITEHOUSE/MEDILL RAY Medill journalism students put their multimedia skills to work covering the 2012 presidential election Cover text from the 2001 (top) and 2014 (bottom) editions of “The Elements of Journalism.” An excerpt from the new edition, page 48 NIEMAN REPORTS EDITORIAL OFFICES Please address all subscription correspondence to: One Francis Avenue, Cambridge, The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University MA 02138-2098, 617-496-6308, One Francis Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138-2098 [email protected] and change of address information to: www.niemanreports.org P.O. Box 4951, Manchester, NH 03108 Copyright 2014 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. ISSN Number 0028-9817 PUBLISHER EDITOR Periodicals postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts and additional entries Postmaster: Send address changes to Ann Marie Lipinski James Geary Nieman Reports P.O. Box 4951, SUBSCRIPTIONS/BUSINESS Manchester, NH 03108 SENIOR EDITOR RESEARCHER/REPORTER 617-496-6299, [email protected] Jan Gardner Jonathan Seitz Nieman Reports (USPS #430-650) Subscription $25 a year, $40 for two years; is published in March, June, September add $10 per year for foreign airmail. and December by the Nieman Foundation at Harvard DESIGN EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Single copies $7.50. University, One Francis Avenue, Stacy Sweat Designs Isabel Campbell-Gross Back copies are available from the Nieman office. Cambridge, MA 02138-2098 Rebecca Mazur Jessie Schanzle SPRING 2014 VOL. 68 NO. 2 COVER 24 Rewrite Journalism education has come to the same ominous inflection point that journalism itself has reached—and the stakes are just as high.
    [Show full text]
  • Contextualizing Varnum V. Brien: a "Moment" in History Patricia A
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2009 Contextualizing Varnum v. Brien: A "Moment" in History Patricia A. Cain Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation 13 J. Gender Race & Just. 27 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Contextualizing Varnum v. Brien: A "Moment" in History PatriciaA. Cain * I. INTRODUCTION Varnum v. Brien' is the last case in a line of state constitutional law challenges in what has been a a fifteen-year campaign by LGBT 2 public interest lawyers seeking legal recognition for same-sex couples. While the litigation may be over for now,3 the larger battle is just beginning. The Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in Varnum will play a central role in this future battle. It stands as part of a major "moment" in the modem history of recognizing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. By "moment," I do not mean a single point in time, but a prolonged period of a year or so over which a substantial shift occurs. I see three key moments in this modem battle for marriage equality. The first distinct moment is the period of time in 1996 surrounding the Hawaii litigation4 and the incipient backlash evidenced by the enactment of various "Defense of Marriage" laws, both at the federal and state level.
    [Show full text]
  • MIKHAIL FRIDMAN, PETR AVEN, and Date Purchased: May 26, 2017 GERMAN KHAN, Plaintiff Designates New York County As Plaintiffs, the Place of Trial
    _____________________________ below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED CAUTiON THI3 000UNENT OBS NOT YET BEEN SEVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLUNK. (See RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Index No.: MIKHAIL FRIDMAN, PETR AVEN, AND Date Purchased: May 26, 2017 GERMAN KHAN, Plaintiff Designates New York County as the Place of Trial. Plaintiffs, The Basis of the Venue is CPLR § 503(a) and(c). Office Address is in KEN BENSINGER, MIRIAM ELDER, AND MARK SCHOOFS, Defendants. SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOUARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs’ attorneys within 20 days after service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: New York, New York May 26, 2017 CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP By: Alan S. Lewis John J. Walsh 2 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 Telephone: (212) 732-3200 Attorneysfor Plaintffs TO: BUzzfEED, INC. 111 East 18th Street New York, New York 10003 New York State court rulec (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(S) (3) ti)) Thie ion coDy of a clasSing filed electronically purcuant to electronic webite, had not yet bean reviewed and which, at the time of its rintout from the court systems authorize the County Clerk to reject aporovad by the County Clerk.
    [Show full text]
  • Becket Fund Amicus Curiea Brief
    No. S147999 In the Supreme Court of California In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365 After a Decision of the Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Three Nos. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, A110651, A110652 San Francisco Superior Court Nos. JCCP4365, 429539, 429548, 504038 Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC088506 Honorable Richard A. Kramer, Judge _________________________________________________ Application and Proposed Brief Amicus Curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of State Defendants _________________________________________________ Derek L. Gaubatz Roger Severino (pro hac vice pending) California Bar No. 208405 The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 4605 Breithorne Court 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 605 Glen Allen, VA 23060 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (804) 539-5421 Telephone: (202) 955-0095 Facsimile: (202) 955-0090 Facsimile: (202) 955-0090 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................iv APPLICATION AND INTEREST OF THE AMICUS ........................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................... 5 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 6 I. Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Create the Risk of Civil Suits Against Religious Institutions That Refuse to Treat Legally Married Same-Sex Couples as Morally Equivalent to Married Men and Women .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Case No. S147999 in the SUPREME COURT of CALIFORNIA in Re MARRIAGE CASES Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365 After
    Case No. S147999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA In re MARRIAGE CASES Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365 After a Decision of the Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Three Nos. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, A110651, A110652 San Francisco Superior Court Nos. JCCP4365, 429539, 429548, 504038 Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC088506 Honorable Richard A. Kramer, Judge RESPONDENTS’ OPENING BRIEF ON THE MERITS STEPHEN V. BOMSE (BAR NO. 40686) SHANNON MINTER (BAR NO. 168907) CHRISTOPHER F. STOLL (BAR NO. 179046) VANESSA H. EISEMANN (BAR NO. 210478) HELLER EHRMAN LLP MELANIE ROWEN (BAR NO. 233041) 333 Bush Street CATHERINE SAKIMURA (BAR NO. 246463) San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS T: (415) 772-6000 / F: (415) 772-6268 870 Market Street Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 T: (415) 392-6257 / F: (415) 392-8442 Additional Counsel Listed on Next Page: LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. CODELL Attorneys for Respondents Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, et al. in No. A110451; Respondent Equality California in No. A110450; Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, et al. in Nos. A110652 and A110651 Additional Attorneys for Respondents Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, Jewelle Gomez and Diane Sabin, Myra Beals and Ida Matson, Arthur Frederick Adams and Devin Wayne Baker, Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper, Karen Shain and Jody Sokolower, Janet Wallace and Deborah Hart, Corey Davis and Andre LeJeune, Rachel Lederman and Alexsis Beach, Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, and Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, Our Family Coalition, and Equality California in No.
    [Show full text]