Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 559

Brief of Amici Curiae Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California; Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network, CA; Unitarian Universalist Association: California Faith for Equality; California Council of Churches; California Council of Churches Church IMPACT; Northern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ; Southern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches; Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis; and Progressive Jewish Alliance filed byUnitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California, et al.. (Isaacson, Eric) (Filed on 2/3/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 559

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page1 of 27

1 ERIC ALAN ISAACSON (120584) [e-mail] 2 STACEY M. KAPLAN (241989) [e-mail] 3 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 4 Telephone: [phone] (fax) 5 6 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California; Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network, CA; Unitarian Universalist Association: 7 California Faith for Equality; California Council of Churches; California Council of Churches Church IMPACT; Northern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ; 8 Southern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches; Pacific 9 Association of Reform Rabbis; and Progressive Jewish Alliance 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ­ and ­ ) ) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) ) ) Plaintiff-Intervenor, ) ) vs. ) ) ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ) ­ and ­ ) PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS ) DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al. ) ) Defendant-Intervenors. ) ) No. 09-cv-02292-VRW [PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST LEGISLATIVE MINISTRY CALIFORNIA; UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST LEGISLATIVE MINISTRY ACTION NETWORK, CA; UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION; CALIFORNIA FAITH FOR EQUALITY; CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES; CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES CHURCH IMPACT; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; UNIVERSAL FELLOWSHIP OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES; PACIFIC ASSOCIATION OF REFORM RABBIS; AND PROGRESSIVE JEWISH ALLIANCE, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS Date: Time: Judge: Location: Trial Date: To be determined To be determined Chief Judge Walker Courtroom 6, 17th Floor January 11, 2010

12 KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page2 of 27

1 2 3 I. 4 II. 5 III. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. B.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI ...........................................................................2 ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................3 A. Proposition 8 Was Enacted to Codify Religious Attitudes Hostile to Homosexuals and Homosexuality............................................................................3 Proposition 8 Denies, Rather than Protects Religious Liberty ................................9

CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................15

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

-i-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page3 of 27

1 2 3 CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

4 Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) ...........................................................................................12 5 Barghout v. Bureau of Kosher Meat & Food Control, 6 66 F.3d 1337 (4th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................................15 7 Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2002)...............................................................................................15 8 County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 9 492 U.S. 573 (1989)...........................................................................................................14 10 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)...........................................................................................................14 11 Epperson v. Arkansas, 12 393 U.S. 97 (1968).............................................................................................................14 13 In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683, 183 P. 3d 384 (2008) ............................................10 14 Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 15 344 U.S. 94 (1952).............................................................................................................14 16 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)...........................................................................................................14 17 Loving v. Virginia, 18 388 U.S. 1 (1967)...............................................................................................................13 19 Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2006)...............................................................................................12 20 Perez v. Sharp, 21 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948) .............................................................................13, 15 22 Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976)...........................................................................................................14 23 Torcaso v. Watkins, 24 367 U.S. 488 (1961)...........................................................................................................11 25 Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872) ...........................................................................................14 26 STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS 27 California Family Code 28 §420(b)...............................................................................................................................10
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

- ii -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559
1 2

Filed02/03/10 Page4 of 27

PAGE

3 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES, BOOKS AND ARTICLES 4 David S. Ariel, What Do Jews Believe? (1996).............................................................................12 5 Newell G. Bringhurst, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People Within Mormonism (1981)...............................................................................13, 14 6 Lester E. Bush, Jr., Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview, in 7 Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church (Lester E. Bush, Jr. & Armand L. Mauss, eds., 1984) .........................13 8 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Washington, D.C.: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 9 2d ed. 1997) ¶1603 .................................................................................................................................10 10 ¶1635..................................................................................................................................11 ¶2384............................................................................................................................12, 13 11 Rebecca Cathcart, Donation to Same-Sex Marriage Foes Brings Boycott Calls, New 12 York Times, July 17, 2008...................................................................................................9 13 Churches IMPACT, How Would Jesus Vote? The California Council of Churches IMPACT Recommendations for the 2008 State Ballot Propositions ...................................4 14 Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 1060 ......................................................................................11 15 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to 16 Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons (2003) ....................7, 11 17 Patrick Egan & Kenneth Sherill California's Proposition 8: What Happened and What Does the Future Hold? (National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, 2009) .......................9 18 Louis M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud (1942)........................................12 19 Jerry Falwell, Listen America! (1980) .............................................................................................7 20 First Presidency, Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families, 21 June 29, 2008 .......................................................................................................................6 22 First Presidency, Statement on Position of Blacks within the Church and Civil Rights, December 16, 1969. ...........................................................................................................14 23 Alfred J. Kolatch, The Second Jewish Book of Why (2000) ..........................................................12 24 Michael G. Lawler, Interchurch Marriages: Theological and Pastoral Reflections 25 (2004).................................................................................................................................11 26 Jan G. Lin, What's Wrong With The Christian Right (2004)...........................................................4 27 28

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

- iii -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559
1 2

Filed02/03/10 Page5 of 27

PAGE

3 Marriage, family advocate in state to support Coburn, The Oklahoman, Oct. 23, 2004................7 4 Jesse McKinley & Kirk Johnson, Mormons Tipped the Scales in Ban on Gay Marriage, New York Times, Nov. 15, 2008....................................................................6, 7 5 Linda J. Patterson, Hate Thy Neighbor: How the Bible is Misused to Condemn 6 Homosexuality (2009)......................................................................................................3, 7 7 Marriage in the Catholic Tradition: Scripture, Tradition, and Experience (Todd A. Salzman, et al., eds., 2004) Ch. 22, 222.............................................................................11 8 Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal 9 Church (Lester E. Bush, Jr. & Armand L. Mauss, eds., 1984)..........................................13 10 Religion & Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (2008)..................................................5 11 Mark Schoofs, Mormons Boost Antigay Effort ­ Group has Given Millions in Support of California Fund, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 2008 .....................................................6 12 Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Homosexuality, June 1977.........................................7 13 Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Homosexuality, June 1980.........................................7 14 Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Homosexuality, June 1988.........................................7 15 Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Homosexual Marriage, 1996.................................4, 8 16 John Shelby Spong, The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to 17 Reveal the God of Love (2005).............................................................................................3 18 Chris Thompson, The Father of Proposition 8: Meet Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, the Apostle of the Movement to Deprive Gay Men and Lesbians of 19 the Right to Marry, East Bay Express, Aug. 12, 2009.........................................................9 20 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Compendium ­ Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Washington, D.C.: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2006) 21 ¶349 ...................................................................................................................................13 22 David Van Biena & Jeff Israelly, Getting to Know Him: How the Pope is Showing Hints of Being His Own Man, TIME, Aug. 1, 2005 ..........................................................13 23 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches 2008 (Eileen W. Lindner, ed., 2008) .....................3 24 Yohanan Friedman, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in Muslim 25 Tradition (2003) 160-93 ....................................................................................................12 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

- iv -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page6 of 27

1 I. 2

INTRODUCTION Amici respectfully submit that Proposition 8 both reflects and improperly codifies strongly

3 negative religious attitudes toward homosexuality and homosexuals not universally shared by all 4 faiths and denominations. Anti-gay religionists placed Proposition 8 on the ballot and financed the 5 campaign to deprive gay and lesbian Californians of a fundamental civil right ­ the right to marry. 6 Polling shows, moreover, a strong correlation between certain religious attitudes and the inclination 7 to vote for the reactionary measure. California should not be permitted to strip a disfavored minority 8 of a fundamental civil right by enacting its most powerful sects' religious doctrine as general law. 9 Proposition 8's Proponents suggest that homosexuals cannot possibly be a persecuted and

10 powerless minority because religious voices spoke both for, and against, Proposition 8. Their expert, 11 Professor Kenneth P. Miller, testified that the California Council of Churches opposed Proposition 8. 12 In fact, its lobbying arm, California Church IMPACT expended less than $3,000 on a ballot mailer 13 covering all the November 2008 propositions, and recommending a "No" vote on Proposition 8. 14 That some religious voices sought to "speak truth to power" on behalf of the disempowered

15 and oppressed only underscores the fact that America's largest and most powerful denominations 16 both condemn homosexuality, and provided the financial and logistical backing needed to enact their 17 doctrines in Proposition 8's ban on the same-sex marriages. Looking to the national denominational 18 bodies of America's 25 largest Christian denominations, only the General Synod of the United 19 Church of Christ spoke against Proposition 8. Of the 21 denominations represented in the California 20 Council of Churches' membership only two ­ the United Church of Christ's Northern and Southern 21 California Conference, and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches ­ 22 generally accepted marriage of same-sex couples in religious ceremonies in their churches. That the 23 Council's position has been pro-religious freedom, pro-church autonomy, pro-equal protection, and 24 anti-enactment of sectarian dogma concerning marriage cannot change the fact that homosexuals 25 remain a disfavored and persecuted minority. 26 Though Proposition 8's Proponents suggest that their initiative's demolition of same-sex

27 couples' civil right was designed to protect Californians' religious liberty, quite the opposite is true. 28 Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry threatens religious liberty of Catholics no more than
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

-1-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page7 of 27

1 does allowing civilly divorced citizens to marry in contravention of Catholic doctrine. Allowing 2 same-sex couples to marry no more threatens religious liberty of those who oppose such unions in 3 their churches and synagogues than permitting interfaith marriage threatens the religious liberty of 4 synagogues and rabbis who interpret their scripture and tradition to prohibit such unions. No one 5 can force clergy of any denomination to solemnize any wedding that conflicts with his or her faith 6 tradition, and no church synagogue, or other place of worship loses its tax exempt status for refusing 7 religious rites of marriage to citizens possessing a civil right to marry. 8 The real threat to religious liberty comes from enforcing as law religious doctrines of a

9 society's most powerful sects, to outlaw marriages that others both recognize and sanctify. Clergy 10 and congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Northern and Southern California 11 Conferences of the United Church of Christ, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community 12 Churches, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, and others, 13 proudly solemnized the legal marriages of same-sex couples ­ until Proposition 8 adopted other 14 sects' doctrine to outlaw those marriages. 15 II. 16 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI The identity and interest of amici are stated in greater detail in their motion for leave to file

17 this brief. As explained there, the Unitarian Universalist Association, Northern California Nevada 18 Conference and Southern California Nevada Conferences of the United Church of Christ, General 19 Synod of the United Church of Christ, and Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community 20 Churches, represent faith traditions whose clergy were solemnizing legal marriages for same-sex 21 couples in their California congregations ­ until Proposition 8 passed. The Pacific Association of 22 Reform Rabbis includes rabbis who solemnized legal marriages for same-sex couples. The 23 Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California (UULM CA), California Faith for Equality, 24 and Progressive Jewish Alliance are faith-based organizations that have engaged in educational work 25 supporting religious freedom and access to civil marriage for same-sex couples. The California 26 Council of Churches' membership comprises more than 4,000 of California's Christian 27 congregations from 21 denominations, including both mainstream and progressive Protestant and 28 Orthodox Christian communities, two of which recognize same-sex marriage in their religious rites.
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

-2-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page8 of 27

1 The Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network, CA PAC and California Council of 2 Churches Church IMPACT together spent less than $63,000 opposing Proposition 8. 3 III. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 John Shelby Spong, The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love 123 (2005); see also Linda J. Patterson, Hate Thy Neighbor: How the Bible is Misused 25 to Condemn Homosexuality (2009). 26 National membership statistics in this paragraph are drawn from the Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches 2008 (Eileen W. Lindner, ed., 2008), prepared for the National Council of the 27 Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. See id. at 10-15. 28
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW
2 1

ARGUMENT A. Proposition 8 Was Enacted to Codify Religious Attitudes Hostile to Homosexuals and Homosexuality

The Right Reverend John Shelby Spong, emeritus Episcopal Bishop of Newark, has observed that "[t]he first line of defense used by those who want to condemn homosexuality appears now to be the Bible. It is evident in Western society today that major negativity against gay and lesbian people emanates from conservative Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant."1 Proposition 8, in fact, both expresses certain religious groups' hostility toward homosexuality and homosexuals, seeking to enforce sectarian doctrine concerning religious rites of marriage. America's largest and most powerful denominations backed the drive, with Proposition 8, to strip same-sex couples of a fundamental civil right.2 The Roman Catholic Church, with more than 67 million U.S. members, is by far America's largest denomination. Joining it in vehement opposition to equal rights for homosexual citizens were many conservative Evangelical churches, including America's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, with its more than 16 million members. In common cause with them was the nation's fourth largest denomination, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at 5.8 million American members. Professor Miller testified that California's gays and lesbians cannot be deemed the target of religious bigotry because the California Council of Churches opposed Proposition 8. In fact, the California Council of Churches devoted no resources to opposing Proposition 8, though its affiliated

-3-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page9 of 27

1 501(c)4, Church IMPACT, expended roughly $2,500 on a ballot-recommendation mailer covering 2 all twelve November 2008 ballot propositions ­ including a "No on 8" recommendation.3 3 Professor Miller suggested that the 21 denominations represented in the Council's

4 membership, which he began listing by name, must have both "supported same-sex marriage and 5 opposed Proposition 8." 10 TR 2463(16)-2464(1). But looking to the seven that Miller named, only 6 the General Synod of the United Church of Christ had spoken against Proposition 8. Though clergy 7 from several of the 21 denominations represented in the Council's membership offer blessings of 8 same-sex unions, only two ­ the United Church of Christ (Northern and Southern California 9 Conferences) and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches ­ generally 10 recognized same-sex marriages in their religious rites. Far from promoting same-sex marriage, the 11 Council's position is one of neutrality ­ urging that each tradition be free to choose its own path.4 12 The Metropolitan Community Churches happen to be a small denomination of 43,000

13 members, mostly homosexuals. The Southern Baptists' Rev. Jerry Falwell notoriously denounced 14 them as "brute beasts," saying that their Church's "vile and satanic system will one day be utterly 15 annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven." Jan G. Lin, What's Wrong With The Christian 16 Right 48 (2004). Falwell's Southern Baptist Convention has joined him in decrying homosexual 17 relationships and same-sex marriages as "in every case sinful, impure, degrading, shameful, 18 unnatural, indecent and perverted,"5 submitting an amicus brief in this case emphasizing that it 19 20 Church IMPACT explained that notwithstanding the "liturgical issues around same-sex marriage, we can be united in supporting civil marriage as a secular right. No church would be 21 forced to conduct a wedding that is contrary to its beliefs, but no church or individual should be if they choose to do so." California Council of Churches IMPACT, 22 barred from the right to marry California Council of Churches IMPACT Recommendations for the How Would Jesus Vote? The 23 2008 State Ballot Propositions.
4 Joining the Marriage Cases, the Council declared: "Our commitment to 24 religious libertyan amicus brief inprotection under the law leads us to assert that the State may not for all and equal rely particular religious sects marriage licenses to same25 gendon the views of In re Marriage Cases, as a basis for denying civilthe Unitarian Universalist er couples." No. S147999, Brief of 3

26 Association of Congregations, et al., at xv-xvi (filed Sept. 26, 2007). 5 27 online: Southern Baptist Convention, Resolution on Homosexual Marriage (June 1996), available http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=614 (last visited Feb. 3, 2010). 28
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

-4-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page10 of 27

1 speaks as "the largest non-Catholic denomination in the nation."6 Its membership comes to many 2 times that of the United Church of Christ and Metropolitan Community Churches combined. 3 The United Church of Christ, whose General Synod opposed Proposition 8, ranks 21st

4 among the nation's 25 largest Christian denominations, with roughly 1.2 million members 5 nationally. That its General Synod and the Metropolitan Community Churches were joined by the 6 Unitarian Universalist Association, claiming fewer than 250,000 members nationally, by the Union 7 for Reform Judaism and Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, as well as by some regional and local 8 organizations, and some individual clergy from larger denominations ­ even California's Episcopal 9 bishops ­ shows only that prophetic voices sought to "speak truth to power" on behalf of the 10 oppressed. Raw political power, alas, was not theirs to wield. 11 Professor Miller's testimony ignores the reality of California's religious and political

12 landscape, where roughly 31% of Californians self-identify as Catholic, while another 18% place 13 themselves within an Evangelical tradition (including the Southern Baptists). The Pew Forum 14 Survey on Religion & Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey 99-100 (2008). The

15 Metropolitan Community Churches don't register such polls. Just seven-tenths of one percent of 16 Americans identify with the Reform Jewish tradition, and another seven-tenths of one percent with 17 "Unitarians and other liberal faiths." Id. at 5. 18 Financial contributions from religiously affiliated organizations for and against Proposition 8

19 demonstrate a real disparity of resources and power.7 A Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights 20 of Columbus, contributed $1.4 million from its national headquarters in Connecticut. To this the 21 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops added $200,000, for a total of at least $1.6 million coming 22 from out-of-state Catholic interests. Joining these Catholic institutions were evangelical Protestants 23 and others. James Dobson's groups, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, together 24
6 Curiae Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern 25 Baptist Brief of Amicus (docket of the 384, filed Jan. 8, 2010). Convention at 1 entry

26

Data for these paragraphs was obtained from information reported to the California Secretary of State, and complied by the San Francisco Chronicle for public access at 27 http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2010). 28
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

7

-5-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page11 of 27

1 gave $715,994, with a board member adding another $450,000. The amounts originally reported 2 from the Mormon Church's Utah headquarters, and the $189,903.58 it eventually admitted to giving, 3 grossly understate its influence: A June 29, 2008, letter from the Church's First Presidency was read 4 to all congregations, urging Mormons to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional 5 amendment by donating your means and time,"8 and members told the Wall Street Journal that 6 "local church leaders had made highly charged appeals, such as saying that their souls would be in 7 jeopardy if they didn't give."9 ProtectMarriage estimates that half of the nearly $40 million raised 8 for Proposition 8 came from Mormons, who also constituted 80 to 90 percent of early precinct 9 walkers. Jesse McKinley & Kirk Johnson, Mormons Tipped the Scales in Ban on Gay Marriage, 10 New York Times, Nov. 15, 2008, Sec. A, p.1. "We've spoken out on other issues," said a Church 11 public-affairs director, "[b]ut we don't get involved to the degree we did on this." Id. 12 Public records reflect no contributions from liberal and progressive religious institutions of

13 sufficient magnitude to counterbalance the $1.6 million coming from national Catholic 14 organizations, let alone those from fundamentalist Evangelicals and Mormons. The Unitarian 15 Universalist Legislative Ministry and its Action Network, CA PAC, which worked to provide the 16 backbone of religious organizing for marriage equality, spent less than $60,000 opposing 17 Proposition 8. Church IMPACT spent less than $3,000 on opposing Proposition 8. Some individual 18 congregations gave to "No on 8." But the public records show that many more socially conservative 19 churches gave, in aggregate, far more. 20 That Proposition 8's fervent backers sought to enact their sects' religious doctrines as civil

21 law is clear. The Roman Catholic Church had placed itself on record against civil recognition of 22 same-sex unions in a formal pronouncement approved by the Pope on March 28, 2003, and issued by 23 the Vatican on June 3, 2003, saying that giving civil rights to same-sex couples amounts to the 24
8 First 25 2008 (onlinePresidency, Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families, June 29, at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sexmarriage (last visited Feb. 2, 2010). 26 9 Mark Schoofs, Mormons Boost Antigay Effort ­ Group has Given Millions in Support of 27 California Fund, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 2008, p.A8. 28

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

-6-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page12 of 27

1 "legalization of evil." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding 2 Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons §5 at 16 (2003). "In 3 those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal 4 status and rights belonging to marriage," the Vatican said, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." 5 Id. Characterizing "[l]egal recognition of homosexual unions" as "the approval of deviant 6 behaviour," the Vatican emphasized that that "all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal 7 recognition of homosexual unions," and warned that "[t]o vote in favour" of according full civil 8 rights to homosexuals is "gravely immoral." Id. §11 at 25, & §10 at 23. 9 America's fundamentalist Evangelical churches, including the Southern Baptist Convention

10 have exhibited even greater hostility toward homosexuals and their relationships. In his book Listen 11 America! the Southern Baptist Rev. Jerry Falwell declared: "Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical 12 attack upon the family, God's order in creation." Jerry Falwell, Listen America! 183 (1980). 13 Falwell elsewhere asserted that "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's 14 punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." Patterson, Hate Thy Neighbor, supra note 1, 15 at 10. And Evangelical leader James Dobson, who founded Focus on the Family and the Family 16 Research Counsel, infamously declared: 17 18 Marriage, family advocate in state to support Coburn, The Oklahoman, Oct. 23, 2004, p. 10A. 19 The Southern Baptist Convention ("SBC") has issued a long series of anti-gay resolutions. 20 Speaking against "legal, social, and religious acceptance for homosexuality and deviant moral 21 behavior," its June 1977 Resolution on Homosexuality denounced "[t]he radical scheme to subvert 22 23 anti-discrimination ordinances and denounced homosexuals' "practices, relations, and perversion." 24 A June 1988 Resolution on Homosexuality decried "erosion of moral sanity," declaring 25 26
10 The SBC has posted the Resolutions quoted in these paragraphs online at 27 http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2010). 28

Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.

the sacred pattern of marriage in America."10 A June 1980 Resolution on Homosexuality opposed

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

-7-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page13 of 27

1 homosexuality "a manifestation of a depraved nature," and asserting that homosexuals have 2 "wrought havoc" with "the introduction and spread of AIDS in the United States which has not only 3 affected those of the homosexual community, but also many innocent victims." The Resolution said 4 Southern Baptists "deplore homosexuality as a perversion" and "an abomination in the eyes of God." 5 In 1993, the SBC declared that open "homosexuality represents a sign of God's surrendering a 6 society to its perversions." 7 The SBC's 1996 Resolution on Homosexual Marriage declared that "homosexual conduct is

8 always a gross abomination for all human beings, both men and women, in all circumstances, 9 without exception." The SBC insisted that permitting same-sex couples to marry is "sinful, impure, 10 degrading, shameful, unnatural, indecent and perverted." It resolved to "clearly and steadfastly 11 oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage," warning that any "action by the government to 12 sanction and legitimize homosexual relationships by the legalization of homosexual marriages, is an 13 abominable sin calling for God's swift judgment upon any such society." Southern Baptists, the 14 SBC declared, are committed "to do all they can to resist and oppose the legalization of homosexual 15 marriages," since anything "that legalizes homosexual marriage is and must be completely and 16 thoroughly wicked according to God's standards." 17 The SBC's June 2008 resolution On the California Supreme Court Decision to Allow Same-

18 Sex Marriage declared that "[a]ny action giving homosexual unions the legal status of marriage 19 denies the fundamental immorality of homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 20 Corinthians 6:9-11)." It endorsed Proposition 8, resolving to "wholeheartedly support" the initiative, 21 and urging "all Southern Baptists in the state of California . . . to exercise their civic and moral duty 22 by working diligently to support and voting to pass this referendum." 23 Efforts of religious groups to place their own sects' anti-homosexual doctrine in civil law

24 drove the "Yes on 8" Campaign from its very inception. The Catholic Church's auxiliary bishop in 25 San Diego, Salvatore Cordileone, reportedly "played an indispensable role in conceiving, funding, 26 27 28
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

-8-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page14 of 27

1 organizing, and ultimately winning the campaign to pass Proposition 8."11 Bishop Cordileone 2 explained on Catholic Radio International that Catholics and fundamentalist Evangelicals had united 3 against a Satanic power: 4 5 6 "The ultimate attack of the Evil One is the attack on marriage, . . . . And again, the evangelicals, they understand that. They understand this is an attack of the Evil One at the core institution."12 San Diego hotel magnate Douglas Manchester told the New York Times that he financed

7 putting the measure on the ballot because "my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the 8 Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."13 9 California's most powerful denominations got their way when Proposition 8 passed with

10 52% voting for the measure, and 48% against. "By a commonly used measure of religiosity ­ 11 frequency of attendance at religious services ­ the most religious (those attending services weekly) 12 favored Proposition 8 by 40 percentage points more than the least religious (those who hardly ever 13 attend services)."14 "Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for

14 Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups. Among those who attend 15 worship less than weekly, majorities of every racial and ethnic group voted `no' on Proposition 8." 16 Id. at 11. Sectarian doctrine condemning homosexual relationships became state law. 17 18 B. Proposition 8 Denies, Rather than Protects Religious Liberty

Proposition 8's Proponents say revoking same-sex couples' right to marry finds a rational

19 basis in "[a]ccommodating the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose 20
11 Chris Proposition 8: Meet Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, 21 the apostle of Thompson, The Father ofgay men and lesbians of the right to marry, East Bay Express, the movement to deprive Aug. 12, available 22 8/Conten2009,=1370716online at http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/the-father-of-propositiont?oid (last visited Feb. 3, 2010), and republished by The Catholic Business

23 Journal, August 21, 2009 http://www.catholicbusinessjournal.biz/Blogs/?p=198 (last visited Feb. 3, 2010). 24 12 Id. 25 Rebecca Cathcart, Donation to Same-Sex Marriage Foes Brings Boycott Calls, New York Times July 17, 2008, Sec. A, p. 15. 26 14 Patrick Egan & Kenneth 27 the Future Hold? at 4 (National Sherill California's Proposition 8: What Happened and What Does Gay & Lesbian Task Force, 2009). 28
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW
13

-9-

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page15 of 27

1 same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds." Defendants-Intervenors' Trial Mem. at 8(16-17). 2 Permitting same-sex couples to marry would, they insist, "[r]ender the traditional definition of 3 marriage embraced by millions of Christians, Jewish, and Muslim Americans no longer legally or 4 socially acceptable, thereby probably forcing many of these Americans to choose between being a 5 believer and being a good citizen," and would "[l]ead to new state-imposed restrictions on First 6 Amendment freedoms." Id. at 10(13-16). Proponents' television ads and other materials warned 7 that if same-sex couples may legally marry, ministers who decline to officiate will face legal 8 liability, and their churches will lose their tax-exempt status. None of this was true. 9 Proposition 8 finds no rational basis in concern for anyone's religious liberty. The Marriage

10 Cases opinion itself had carefully specified that 11 12 13 affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

14 In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757, 854-55, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683, 183 P. 3d 384 (2008). 15 The First Amendment would in any event preserve every religion's ability to make its own

16 rules concerning its own religious marriages. No state may force any clergy to officiate at any 17 wedding to which he or she objects. In fact, by adopting sectarian religious doctrine, Proposition 8 18 impinges directly upon the religious liberty of members and clergy of the faith traditions whose 19 congregations and clergy have welcomed same-sex couples to enter legal marriages in religious 20 ceremonies. Establishment-clause and free-exercise principles should operate together to prohibit 21 the enactment, as law, of other sects' doctrines to deny legal status to those marriages. 22 Proposition 8's Proponents generally have insisted that marriage is of divine origin ­

23 instituted by God.15 But California law should be blind to sectarian doctrines on divine law.16 Even 24 25 Endorsing Proposition 8 in September 2008, for example, the California SBC's Executive Board declared "marriage was the first institution ordained by God." California Southern Baptist 26 Board Endorses Proposed Constitutional Marriage Amend., Sept. 23, 2008, http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=28975 (last visited 2010). 27 Catholic Church's official Catechism agrees that "`God himself Feb. 3,author of The Roman is the marriage.'" Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶1603 (Washington, D.C.: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2d ed. 28
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW
15

- 10 -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page16 of 27

1 nonbelievers have a right to marry. That atheists and agnostics enjoy the same legal right to marry 2 as those who revere marriage as a divine institution poses no threat to anyone's religious liberty. No 3 atheist or agnostic couple may force any church or synagogue to open its doors to them. But neither 4 may those who deem marriage a divine institution "protect" their own sectarian religious beliefs and 5 practices by legislating any test of faith, or of religious propriety, to deprive nonbelievers or the 6 unorthodox of the legal right to marry. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). 7 That people of different faiths may marry one another similarly poses no threat to the

8 religious liberty of the faith traditions and clergy that reject, discourage, or restrict interfaith 9 marriages. For most of the twentieth century, Roman Catholics' Code of Canon Law proscribed 10 interfaith marriages.17 Dramatically liberalized in 1983, Catholic doctrine still restricts interfaith 11 marriage by requiring the Church's "express permission" for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic 12 Christian, and "an express dispensation" for a Catholic to marry a non-Christian. Catechism of the 13 Catholic Church, supra note 15, ¶1635. Yet the Church and its priests have never faced legal 14 liability for refusing marriage rites to mixed-faith couples, and the religious liberty of California's 15 Catholics by no means requires, nor could it justify, the state's legal enforcement of their Church's 16 rules regulating mixed-faith marriages. 17 18 19 top doctrinal body insists that marriage "was established by the Creator." 20 1997). That Church'sDoctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Congregation for the 21 Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, §2 at 11 (2003). The Mormon Church First Presidency's June 28 letter to all California congregations, supra note 8, was similarly grounded in 22 an assertion that "[m]arriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."
16 its inception, California law has treated institution of civil marriage as 23 distinct "Fromreligious marriage." Marriage Cases, 43 the legal at 792 n.11. The Family Code from Cal. 4th contract of marriage, 24 provides: "Nothe requirements of any if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to sect." Calif. Family Code. §420(b).

25

Michael G. Lawler, Interchurch Marriages: Theological and Pastoral Reflections, in Marriage in the Catholic Tradition: Scripture, Tradition, and Experience Ch. 22, 222 (Todd A. 26 Salzman, et al., eds., 2004) (quoting Canon 1060 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: "The church 27 everywhere most severely prohibits theamarriage between two baptized persons, one of whom is Catholic, the other of whom belongs to heretical or schismatic sect."). 28
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

17

- 11 -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page17 of 27

1

In Judaism, the Orthodox and Conservative Movements prohibit interfaith marriages.18 The

2 Rabbinic tradition proscribing mixed-faith marriage is grounded in Scripture.19 Yet California's 3 Jews do not think their religious liberty needs the protection of state laws barring civil marriage of 4 interfaith couples. That California permits mixed-faith marriages by no means forces California's 5 Jews "to choose between being a believer and being a good citizen," as Proponents put it. 6 Defendants-Intervenors' Trial Mem. at 10(14-15). 7 Islamic law is widely understood to bar interfaith marriages between a Muslim woman and

8 non-Muslim man, and also to prohibit marriage of any Muslim to a polytheist or pagan.20 Some 9 nations strive to defend the Muslim faith by incorporating these rules in their civil law.21 But the 10 religious liberty of California's Muslims could not justify California's adoption of similar rules, 11 which the Ninth Circuit holds amount to religious persecution if backed by governmental power.22 12 Under California law, a legally divorced man or woman may marry again. This poses no

13 threat to the liberty of Roman Catholics, whose Church both pronounces divorce "a grave offense 14 against the natural law," and condemns remarriage by, or to, a divorced person as "public and 15 permanent adultery." Catechism of the Catholic Church, supra, ¶2384. The Roman Catholic 16 Church insists that divorced people who remarry necessarily "find themselves in a situation that 17 See Louis M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud 145-219 (1942); see also, e.g., David S. Ariel, What Do Jews Believe? 129 (1996) ("Judaism is clearly and unequivocally to intermarriage 19 opposedWhy 121 (2000). between a Jew and a non-Jew"); Alfred J. Kolatch, The Second Jewish Book of 20 19 Kolatch, The Second Jewish Book of Why, at 120 ("The prohibition of marriages between 18 21 Jews and non-Jews is biblical in origin. Deuteronomy 7:3 sets forth the law clearly: `You shall not intermarry with them; do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.'"); see also Genesis 24:3-4; Exodus 34:11-16; Joshua 23:11-13; Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah, 13:2322 30; Malachi 2:11-12. 23 Yohanan Friedman, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in Muslim Tradition 160-93 (2003). 24
21 See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 25 that "specifically forbids non-Muslims from1163 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting Iranian Ayatollah's edict marrying Muslim women"); Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 292, 293 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that an interfaith Jewish-Muslim marriage "violates Iranian law 26 and Muslim law (Shariah)"). 20
18

27 28

22

See Bandari, 227 F.3d at 1168.

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

- 12 -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page18 of 27

1 objectively contravenes God's law." Id. at ¶1650. The Church accordingly "cannot recognize the 2 union of people who are civilly divorced and remarried."23 Those who divorce and remarry "cannot 3 receive sacramental absolution, take Holy Communion, or exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities 4 as long as their situation, which objectively contravenes God's law, persists."24 5 Neither may they sue the Church for enforcing these rules. No one may compel a Catholic

6 priest either to solemnize a wedding at odds with his Church's doctrine, or to give communion to 7 those whom the civil law recognizes as legally divorced and remarried. No Catholic Church has lost 8 its tax-exempt status for denying anyone its religious rites of marriage and communion. The civil 9 right of the civilly divorced to remarry poses no threat to the religious liberty of Catholics. 10 Recognizing same-sex couples' legal right to marry threatens religious liberty of those who

11 reject such marriages no more than recognizing the legal right of mixed-race couples in Perez v. 12 Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948), and in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), could 13 impair the religious liberty of those who reject interracial unions as contrary to God's law. 14 The Mormon Church for most of its history ­ indeed, until June of 1978 ­ both barred blacks

15 from its priesthood, and condemned interracial marriage.25 Its doctrine was controversial, but no one 16 could force the Church to let black men enter its priesthood, and no interracial couple could insist 17 upon being married in a Mormon temple. The Church faced no legal liability, and suffered no loss 18 of its tax-exempt status, for refusing Mormon rites of marriage to mixed-race couples. 19 20 21
23 U.S. Conference 22 ¶349 (Washington, D.C.:of Catholic Bishops, Compendium ­ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2006). 23 24 Id. Pope Benedict XVI reportedly has "dashed the hopes of those who begged him to let

without getting an annulment take Communion." David 24 Catholics who have divorced and remarried Him: How the Pope is Showing Hints of Being His Own Van Biena & Jeff Israelly, Getting to Know 25 Man, TIME, Aug. 1, 2005, at 36, 38.
25 See generally Newell G. Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of 26 Black People Within MormonismBringhurst, Saints, Bush, Jr., Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An (1981); Lester E. Historical Overview, in Neither White nor Confront the 27 Universal Church 53-129 (Lester E. Bush, Black: Mormon Scholarseds., 1984). Race Issue in a Jr. & Armand L. Mauss, 28

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

- 13 -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page19 of 27

1

The Mormon Church itself observed, at the time, that "matters of faith, conscience, and

2 theology are not within the purview of the civil law."26 Church doctrine "affecting those of the 3 Negro race who choose to join the church falls wholly within the category of religion," the First 4 Presidency declared in 1969, and "has no bearing upon matters of civil rights." The Church quite 5 clearly was protected by the First Amendment when it limited marriage on the basis of race ­ even if 6 it could no longer impose its religious doctrine on others as civil law. 7 Allowing mixed-race couples to marry outside the Mormon Church thus presented no threat

8 to Mormons' religious liberty to prohibit interracial marriages within their Church. Allowing same9 sex couples to marry outside the Mormon Church similarly poses no threat to Mormons' religious 10 liberty. Any law purporting to protect Mormons' "religious liberty" by banning either mixed-race 11 marriages or same-sex marriages must be deemed utterly irrational. 12 The religious liberty of Proposition 8's Proponents is not enhanced or protected by placing

13 their own faith traditions' doctrinal restrictions in California's constitution ­ unless "religious 14 liberty" means freedom to force others to follow your own religious rules. It clearly does not. Our 15 "`law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no 16 sect.'"27 Under our Constitution, "government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious 17 doctrine."28 Thus, the Supreme Court readily invalidates state laws barring the teaching of 18 Darwinian evolution or requiring instruction of "creation science," because they seek to codify 19 conservatives' religious doctrine.29 It properly keeps religious doctrine out of our public schools. 20 See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 618-19 (1992); Epperson, 393 U.S. at 108-09. The State 21 All quotations in this paragraph are drawn from: First Presidency, Statement on Position of 22 Blacks within the Church and Civil Rights, December 16, 1969, reprinted in Bringhurst, Saints, 23 Slaves, and Blacks, supra note 25, at 231-32. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 24 WatsonSerbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v.(1872)); accord Kedroff 696, 710-11 (1976) (quoting v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 728 v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 114 (1952). 25
28 27 26

26

County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 590 (1989).

29 See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104-09 27 Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 593 (1987) (creation science). (1968) (Darwinian evolution); Edwards v. 28

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

- 14 -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page20 of 27

1 cannot constitutionally choose to impose the traditions of one religion on members of another; it 2 cannot say what is kosher, or holy, or ordained by God.30 3 Perez v. Sharp starkly frames the religious-liberty issue. When California law prohibited a

4 mixed-race marriage of two Catholics, whose Church blessed matrimony between believers of 5 different races, the mixed-race couple argued "that the statutes in question are unconstitutional on 6 the grounds that they prohibit the free exercise of their religion and deny to them the right to 7 participate fully in the sacraments of that religion." 32 Cal. 2d at 713. Justice Traynor wrote for a 8 plurality of three justices that if "the law is discriminatory and irrational, it unconstitutionally 9 restricts not only religious liberty but the liberty to marry as well." Id. at 713-14. Justice Edmonds 10 provided the fourth vote, making a precedential majority, by agreeing that a couple's right to marry 11 "is protected by the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom." Id. at 740 (Edmonds, J., 12 concurring). Outlawing a marriage between two Catholics of different races, because others thought 13 God intended the races to remain apart, violated Catholics' religious freedom. See id. 14 Surely, Unitarian Universalists, members of the United Church of Christ and Metropolitan

15 Community Churches, Reform Jews, Reconstructionist Jews, and others whose faith traditions bless 16 marital unions without regard to the contracting parties' race or sex, are entitled to the same religious 17 liberty as Catholics. Proposition 8 deprives them of that liberty. 18 IV. 19 CONCLUSION Proposition 8 amounts to an unconstitutional codification of hostility toward, and sectarian

20 doctrine concerning, homosexuality and homosexuals. It should be stricken. 21 DATED: February 3, 2010 22 23 24 25 26
30

Respectfully submitted, s/ Eric Alan Isaacson ERIC ALAN ISAACSON ERIC ALAN ISAACSON [e-mail]

Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 430 (2d Cir. 2002); Barghout v. Bureau of Kosher Meat & Food Control, 66 F.3d 1337, 1346-49 (4th Cir. 1995) (Luttig, 27 J., concurring). 28
[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

- 15 -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page21 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

STACEY M. KAPLAN [e-mail] 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: [phone] (fax) Attorneys for Amici Curiae Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California; Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network, CA; Unitarian Universalist Association; California Faith for Equality; California Council of Churches; California Council of Churches Church IMPACT; Northern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ; Southern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches; Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis; and Progressive Jewish Alliance

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE - 09-cv-02292-VRW

- 16 -

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Filed02/03/10 Page22 of 27

1 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 3, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail 4 addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have 5 mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF 6 participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List. 7 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

8 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 3, 2010. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 s/ ERIC ALAN ISAACSON ERIC ALAN ISAACSON 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: [phone] (fax) E-mail: [e-mail]

CAND-ECFCase3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Page 1 of 5

Filed02/03/10 Page23 of 27

Mailing Information for a Case 3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Electronic Mail Notice List
The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. College of Pediatricians [e-mail]
American

C. Baxter [e-mail]
Rosanne

Brianna Bernstein [e-mail],[e-mail]
Erin

J. Bettan [e-mail]
Richard

of Supervisors of Imperial County [e-mail]
Board

V. Bomse [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Stephen

Bopp , Jr [e-mail]
James

Lynn Borelli [e-mail]
Tara

J. Boutrous , Jr [e-mail],[e-mail]
Theodore

J. Brosnahan [e-mail],[e-mail]
James

E. Bunim [e-mail]
David

R. Burke [e-mail],[e-mail]
Thomas

Bruce Burns [e-mail],[e-mail]
Gordon

A Campbell [e-mail],[e-mail]
James

L Carmichael [e-mail]
Holly

D Chandler [e-mail],[e-mail]
Timothy

Ricardo Chavez-Ochoa [e-mail]
Brian

Yeh Chou [e-mail],[e-mail]
Danny

Albert Coles [e-mail]
Matthew

Russell Conrad [e-mail],[e-mail]
Mark

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?74968536612124-L_358_0-1

2/2/2010

CAND-ECFCase3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559

Page 2 of 5

Filed02/03/10 Page24 of 27

Charles J. Cooper [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]

of Imperial of the State of California [e-mail]
County

Warren Davidson [e-mail]
Jon

D. Dettmer [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Ethan

Dean Dusseault [e-mail]
Christopher

Dixon Esseks [e-mail]
James Ethics

and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention [e-mail]

P. Flynn [e-mail],[e-mail]
Ronald

L Garlow [e-mail]
James

O. Gill [e-mail],[e-mail]
Elizabeth

Michael Goldman [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Jeremy

John Gorman [e-mail],[e-mail]
Patrick

Grant [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Eric

for Marriage and Public Policy [e-mail]
Institute

Franklin Kolm [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Claude

A Kramer [e-mail],[e-mail]
Leslie

S LiMandri [e-mail]
Charles

Salvatore LiMandri [e-mail],[e-mail]
Charles

L. Llewellyn , Jr [e-mail]
David

W. Lorence [e-mail],[e-mail]
Jordan

Francisco Martinez [e-mail]
Manuel

Elizabeth McAlister [e-mail]
Mary Michael

James McDermott

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?74968536612124-L_358_0-1

2/2/2010

CAND-ECFCase3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559
[e-mail] Dempsey McGill [e-mail]
Matthew

Page 3 of 5

Filed02/03/10 Page25 of 27

McPherson [e-mail]
Miles

C. Mennemeier [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Kenneth

Minter [e-mail]
Shannon

Antonio Monagas [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Enrique

Lynn Monk [e-mail]
Jennifer

Hector Moreno , Jr [e-mail]
Jose

Center for Lesbian Rights [e-mail]
National

C. Nielson , Jr [e-mail]
Howard

R. Nimocks [e-mail]
Austin

B Olson [e-mail]
Theodore

Pachter [e-mail]
Tamar

Michael Panuccio [e-mail]
Jesse

A. Patterson [e-mail]
Peter

Elizabeth Piepmeier [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Sarah

Carol Pizer [e-mail]
Jennifer

Perry Pugno [e-mail]
Andrew

W Raum [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Brian

Cary Roth [e-mail],[e-mail]
Jerome

Schiller [e-mail]
Josh

Lawrence Schlosser [e-mail]
Alan

James Schweickert [e-mail]
Christopher

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?74968536612124-L_358_0-1

2/2/2010

CAND-ECFCase3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559
Kevin Trent Snider [e-mail]

Page 4 of 5

Filed02/03/10 Page26 of 27

Francis Stoll [e-mail]
Christopher

Walter Stroud [e-mail],[e-mail]
Andrew

Cameron Tayrani [e-mail]
Amir

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty [e-mail]
The

Christine Thompson [e-mail]
Angela

H. Thompson [e-mail],[e-mail]
David

Lee Thompson [e-mail]
Terry

Margaret Turner [e-mail],[e-mail]
Ilona

Henry Tyler [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Robert

Hideyuki Uno [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Theodore

Van Aken [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
Christine

Vargas [e-mail]
Isabel

Whitehurst [e-mail],[e-mail]
Judy

Manual Notice List
The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients.
David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Thomas Brejcha Thomas More Society 29 S. La Salle Suite 440 Chicago, IL 60603 Richard E. Coleson 1 South 6th Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 Christopher M. Gacek Family Research Council 801 G Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Kevin James Hasson 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?74968536612124-L_358_0-1

2/2/2010

CAND-ECFCase3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document559
Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036-1735 Theane Evangelis Kapur Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Michael W. Kirk Cooper & Kirk, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 2003 Rena M Lindevaldsen Liberty Counsel 100 Mountainview Rd, Ste 2775 Lynchberg, VA 24502 Paul Benjamin Linton 921 Keystone Avenue Northbrook, IL 60062 Vincent P. McCarthy W. Chestnut Hill Road Lichfield, CT 06759 Michael James McDermott 7172 Regional #329 Dublin , CA 94568 National Legal Foundation P.O. Box 64427 Virginia Beach, VA 23467-4427 Kaylan L. Phillips 1 South 6th Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 Tobias Barrington Wolff University of Pennsylvania Law School 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6204

Page 5 of 5

Filed02/03/10 Page27 of 27

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?74968536612124-L_358_0-1

2/2/2010