Professional Documents
Culture Documents
v.
v.
v.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I.
SEEK TO ESTABLISH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Fundamental
Rights
Arguments
Marriage Redefinition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
II.
FAIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Redefine Marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
III.
Redefine Marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
ii
IV.
COURT-ORDERED
MARRIAGE
REDEFINITION THREATENS CORE
AMERICAN LIBERTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A. Court-Ordered Marriage Redefinition
Threatens Rights Of The People To
Govern Themselves And Set Public
Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B. Court-Ordered Marriage Redefinition
Threatens Core First Amendment
RightsFree Speech, Thought, And
Religion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
V.
VI.
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Akridge v. Wilkinson,
178 Fed. Appx. 474 (6th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . 29
Andersen v. King Cnty.,
138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Baehr v. Lewin,
852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Baker v. Nelson,
191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 17
Baskin v. Bogan,
12 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (S.D. Ind. 2014) . . . . . . 9, 21
Baskin v. Bogan,
766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder,
962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla.
2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Bond v. United States,
131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Bostic v. Rainey,
970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014) . . . . . passim
Bostic v. Schaefer,
760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Bourke v. Beshear,
996 F. Supp. 2d 542 (W.D. Ky. 2014) . . 22, 28, 31
iv
Brenner v. Scott,
Commonwealth v. Knowlton,
Conaway v. Deane,
Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla,
DeBoer v. Snyder,
772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . passim
DeLeon v. Perry,
Geiger v. Kitzhaber,
2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 28, 32
Gregory v. Ashcroft,
v
Griego v. Oliver,
Griswold v. Connecticut,
Haddock v. Haddock,
Hernandez v. Robles,
Jackson v. Abercrombie,
Jernigan v. Crane,
25, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Jones v. Hallahan,
Katcoff v. Marsh,
Kitchen v. Herbert,
Kitchen v. Herbert,
Latta v. Otter,
vi
Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U.S. 558 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 21, 31, 32
Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1 (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Maynard v. Hill,
Milford v. Worcester,
7 Mass. 48 (1810) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Morrison v. Sadler,
Obergefell v. Wymyslo,
Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard,
2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9, 19, 33
Shelby v. Holder,
vii
Skinner v. Oklahoma,
316 U.S. 535 (1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sosna v. Iowa,
Maricopa,
Teter v. Teter,
Turner v. Safley,
Ward v. Polite,
Washington v. Glucksberg,
Wilson v. Ake,
Wolf v. Walker,
viii
Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356 (1886) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Zablocki v. Redhail,
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Okla. Const. art. 2, 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Blacks Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . 13
https://www.libertyinstitute.org/modderfacts . . . . 29
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/
howaboutthat/7662232/Grandmother-andgrandson-to-have-child-together.html . . . . . . . 19
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/
06/13/presidential-proclamation-fathers-day2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ix
James Madison, The Papers of James Madison,
(Henry Gilpin ed., Washington: Langtree and
OSullivan, 1840) (Vol. II, June 28, 1787) . . . . . 31
Making Gay OK: How Rationalizing Homosexual
Behavior is Changing (Robert R. Reilly, Ignatius
Press) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 19, 21
Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln By
Distinguished Men of His Time (Allen Thorndike
Rice ed., New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers, 1909) (Classic Reprint 2012) (18531889) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense
(Girgis, Anderson, and George, New York:
Encounter Books, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
World Family Declaration, http://worldfamily
declaration.org/WFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3
INTRODUCTION AND
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/13/
presidential-proclamation-fathers-day-2014.
II.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Slavery was made plausible by redefining AfricanAmerican persons as property rather than human
beings. Similarly, courts manipulate reality when they
mandate marriage redefinition:
The purpose of language is no longer to
apprehend things as they are, but to transform
them into what we want them to be . . . just as
when a black man was called a piece of property
and used as an article of merchandise rather
than a human being. An injustice of similar
magnitude is perpetrated by naming same-sex
couplings marriage.
Making Gay OK: How Rationalizing Homosexual
Behavior is Changing (Robert R. Reilly, Ignatius
Press), 47. Such flights from reality destroy the human
equality marriage redefinition proponents claim to
defend.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
COURT-ORDERED
MARRIAGE
REDEFINITION THREATENS CORE
AMERICAN LIBERTIES.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
https://www.libertyinstitute.org/modderfacts
03/19/15).
8
(last
visited
30
31
32
33
34
Certain realities are given and cannot be altered by
legal action. The immutable facts of biology distinguish
opposite-sex and same-sex couples in a way that no
legislature or court decree can alterany more than
voters could overturn the law of gravity.
Courts protect the inalienable rights referenced in
Americas Declaration of Independencerights that
precede the state and preempt human law, rights that
do not change over time. Respondents trample these
rights in order to manufacture new rights that defy
the nature of reality.
CONCLUSION
This Court should affirm the decision of the Sixth
Circuit.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah J. Dewart
Counsel of Record
Attorney at Law
620 E. Sabiston Drive
Swansboro, NC 28584-9674
(910) 326-4554
(910) 326-4585 (fax)
debcpalaw@earthlink.net
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Dated: March 30, 2015