Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • 120815 Amicus Brief for Cert Prop 8 VER2

120815 Amicus Brief for Cert Prop 8 VER2

120815 Amicus Brief for Cert Prop 8 VER2

Page 1: 120815 Amicus Brief for Cert Prop 8 VER2


Number of Pages:27

Date Created:August 30, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:couples, marriage, Romer, Crawford, proposition, Ninth, Perry, evans, Constitution, amendment, colorado, Supreme, California, Circuit, Supreme Court, Washington, court, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

No. 12-144 THE 

Supreme Court the United States 
Respondents. Petition for Writ Certiorari the United States Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
Paul Orfanedes 
Counsel Record 
Chris Fedeli Julie Axelrod JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street S.W., Ste. 800 Washington, D.C. 20024 
(202) 646-5172
    Counsel for Amici Curiae 
Dated: August 31, 2012 
LEGAL PRINTERS LLC, Washington 202-747-2400 

TABLE CONTENTS ............................................. 

TABLE AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii 

INTEREST THE AMICI CURIAE .......................1 

SUMMARY ARGUMENT ....................................2 

RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW ......................3 
The Ninth Circuit Unjustly
Overruled Seven Million California 
Voters .................................................3 
Judicially Striking Laws Based  
Assumed Motives Dangerously
Undemocratic  .....................................5 
Proposition Supporters Put Forth Valid Basis for the Law ..................6 
Laws Are Not Unconstitutional 
Merely Because There Are Other
Ways Achieve Goal  ...................12 

PROTECTION LIMITS STATE ACTION ..................................16 
The Ninth Circuit Misinterprets 
Romer Evans and Crawford ........16 
Proposition Did Not Take Away 
Rights, but Merely Re-affirmed 
Prior Democratic Decision  ...............19 


Crawford Board Education, 
458 U.S. 527 (1982) ....................................... 16, 

Dandridge Williams, 
397 U.S. 471 (1970) ............................................. 

FCC Beach Communications, Inc., 
508 U.S. 307 (1993) ....................................... 11,   

Heller Doe, 
509 U.S. 312 (1993) ................................. 11, 13, Marriage Cases, Cal. 4th 757 (2008). ....................................... 

Johnson Robison, 
415 U.S. 361 (1974) ............................................ 

Murphy Ramsey, 
114 U.S. (1885) .............................................. 

Perry Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) .................... passim 
Romer Evans, 
517 U.S. 620 (1996) ..................... 16, 17, 

William Blackstone, Commentaries the Laws England (1765-1769), available at: ...................................................................... 
Tim Craig, Gray opposes Chick-fil-A expansion; calls hate chicken, Washington Post (July 28, 2012), .... 
The Russian Effort Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic (July 1926), available at  ... 
Lynn Wardle, The Withering Away Marriage: Some Lessons from the Bolshevik Family Law Reforms Russia, 1917-1926, Geo. Pub. Policy 469 (Summer 2004)  ....................................... 
Debra Cassens Weiss, Justice Ginsburg: Roe Wade Decision Came Too Soon, ABAJournal (Feb 13,2012), available  ....................... What Dan Cathy said, Atlanta Journal Constitution, July 26, 2012, available at ............................................................... 
Wikipedia, California Proposition (2000), .................................................................... 

Judicial Watch, Inc. non-partisaneducational foundation that seeks promote transparency, integrity, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law.  Judicial Watch regularly files amicus curiae briefs means advance its public interest mission and has appeared amicus curiae this Court number occasions. 
The Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) nonprofit charitable and educational foundation based Englewood, New Jersey. Founded 1964, AEF dedicated promoting education diverseareas study. AEF regularly files amicus curiae briefs means advance its purpose and hasappeared amicus curiae this Court number occasions. 
Amici believe that the decision the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (hereinafter, NinthCircuit lower court) raises important issues constitutional law which should heard thisCourt. particular, amici are concerned that the Ninth Circuit has unlawfully limited the right the people and states self-governance, and are  Pursuant Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amici curiae state that counsel for party authored this brief whole part; and that person entity, other than amici curiae and their counsel, made monetary contribution intended fund the preparation and submission this brief.  All parties haveconsented the filing this brief; letters reflecting thisblanket consent have been filed with the Clerk.  
concerned about the effect that decision American democracy. Among the harms caused the Ninth Circuits decision are: dangerous erosionof the principles federalism; anti-democraticlimitation the peoples right popular initiativeand referendum; and drastic revision the concept rational basis Equal Protectionanalysis. For these and other reasons, amici urgethe Court grant the Petition for Writ ofCertiorari. 

SUMMARY ARGUMENT order find that rational policy reasoncould support Proposition the Ninth Circuitredefines marriage such way that wouldeliminate any rational purpose for limiting marriage opposite sex marriage. The Ninth Circuits sleight-of-hands decision therefore constitutes dangerous erosion the principle rational basisreview, namely that any legitimate interest put forth support legislation sufficient uphold thelaw. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit decision grossly expands the reaches the Equal Protectionclause, which would swallow the states traditional authority and police powers allowed stand.  The Ninth Circuit holds that Proposition unconstitutional, without addressing the issue ofwhether the Federal Constitution provides right for same-sex couples marry. The Ninth Circuitavoids reaching that question because there isbinding Supreme Court precedent the issue that holds the Constitution does not provide such right. The ruling, therefore, proclaims that the Constitution prevents states from withdrawingrights from groups without legitimate reasons, and that Californians could not have had legitimatereasons pass Proposition This unjustifiedconclusion that imputes the worst possible motivesto voters, despite the lower courts protestations tothe contrary.   

Fifty-two percent Californians  over sevenmillion people  voted for Proposition  The Ninth Circuit has now held that all seven million these voters could have had rational reason vote this way other than disapproval homosexual couples,or their own ignorance.  The lower court claims that following Romer Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)(Romer Evans Romer) striking down Proposition holding that the law was inexplicable for any reason other than animus towards theaffected group. Perry Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 10921095 (9th Cir. 2012) (Perry). The decision thereforerests the false rejection the legitimate policygoal Californias interest childrearing responsible procreation order arrive its conclusion that Proposition was based nothing more than malice disapproval towards homosexual couples. Perry 1086. 
The Ninth Circuits reasoning based thedistasteful assumption that Proposition irrational that one could vote for except out ofmalice disapproval homosexuals. The lower court says that inevitable inference that Proposition was born animosity towardshomosexual couples. Perry 1093. The Ninth Circuit tries soften this saying does notmean suggest that Proposition the result illwill the part the voters California, Perry 1093, instead characterizing seven million Californians voicing nothing more than theirdisapproval gays and lesbians, this weremuch different. Perry 1093. The lower court attempts further qualify its condemnation andjudgment the motives this majority voters attributing their irrational behavior voters simply not knowing any better. Perry 1093. The Ninth Circuits concession that the voters California may just well have been driven irrational ignorance irrational hostility doesnot render the decision less dangerous. 
The Ninth Circuit claims that, because Proposition continues allow civil unions option for same-sex couples, Proposition thereforecould not have been enacted advance Californias interest childrearing responsible procreation. Id. 1063. While the Ninth Circuit may not believe that special designation for opposite-sex couplescould possibly advance the cause responsibleprocreation, the court has overstepped its authority refusing credit supporters Proposition withsuch reasonable belief. The Ninth Circuit has therefore traced dangerous path, this judicialpractice divining popular legislative motives inrational basis review has obvious limitingprinciple. Judicially 	Striking Laws Based Assumed Motives Dangerously Undemocratic. 
Many have questioned the practice judicial intervention the middle nationwide social debates far reaching consequence.2 When the judicial action comes the form dismissal group citizens either bigoted incapable ofrational thought, the effects are compounded.  The judicial branchs authority and insulation from thedemocratic process carries with the responsibilityto use restraint matters broad social concern.3 Although amici not believe that Romer Evans must overturned order reverse Perry, nonetheless striking that the dissents words thatcase, the Court has mistaken Kulturkampf for afit spite, could well have been applied theNinth Circuits actions. Romer 636. 
The Ninth Circuit admits that the debate over the wisdom same sex marriage an important and highly controversial question and currently matter great debate our nation, and issue 
over which people good will may disagree. Perryat 1064. However, remains unexplained how the Ninth Circuits contribution that debate amounts anything other than either limiting the impact ofdemocratic decision-making merely inflamingpassions. the sixteen years since Romer Evans, the tone the debate over same-sex marriage has become increasingly heated. Though the institution same sex marriage existed state the union until 2003, mere nine years later manygroups are comfortable denouncing any traditional view marriage sheer bigotry.  The most recent and notorious example was the reaction DanCathy, the President the restaurant franchiseChick-fil-A, when affirmed interview that supports the traditional definition marriage.4 The resulting uproar was hostile, with many groups and politicians calling him bigot and accusing hisrestaurants serving hate chicken, the words ofthe mayor Washington D.C.5 Proposition Supporters Put Forth Valid Basis for the Law. 
The traditional public policy goal civil marriage encourage the optimal raising  What Dan Cathy said, Atlanta Journal Constitution, July 26, 2012,  Tim Craig, Gray opposes Chick-fil-A expansion; calls hate chicken, Washington Post (July 28, 2012), available http: // log.html 
children throughout all society, and not justamong the adult partners who are already the mostresponsible and committed. Preserving this particular traditional aspect the marital union arational way facilitate that goal. Based this rational policy preference, wholly irrelevantwhether same sex couples are equally skilled asopposite sex couples the tasks raising children.Rather, this policy goal views marriages public purpose not one bestowing laurels committed couples, but rather conferring obligation uncommitted ones.  Specifically, aview marriage not shared the Ninth Circuit,marriage social institution which exists put asense duty adults raise the next generation citizens with two partnered caregivers  even (and especially when) one the adult parties apregnancy prefers abandon both the child and the mate. The Ninth Circuit reaches its opinion thatthere legitimate reason that the definition ofmarriage cannot stretched include the union same sex couples redefining the purpose the institution marriage California according its own policy preferences  namely, marriage benefit marrying couples, rather than obligation couples conceiving children for thebenefit the child. 
The Ninth Circuits decision redefines marriage the recognition that the State affords those who are stable and committed lifelongrelationships and the principal manner whichthe State attaches respect and dignity the highestform committed relationship and the individuals who have entered into it. Perry 1079. However, this description only one possible view ofmarriage, and departs widely from the traditionaldefinition. Indeed, unclear why the NinthCircuits definition marriage would not alsoapply unmarried adult siblings who live togetherwith the intention always doing so, lifelongcommitted platonic roommates. 
The Ninth Circuits analysis focuses view ofmarriage based its impact the happiness andsocial status the adults who wish enter into union together, citing authorities such GrouchoMarx, Frank Sinatra, and Marilyn Monroe.  Perry 1078. The Ninth Circuit omits from its analysis theimpact marriage children unintentionallyconceived opposite sex couples. definingmarriage without reference the potential children, the Ninth Circuit can easily reimagine theinstitution marriage one from which would irrational exclude same-sex couples. ignoring the reality unintentionallyconceived children, the Ninth Circuit lets itself focus the similarities between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships while ignoring the categoricaldifferences.  The Ninth Circuit states that, deciding enter committed relationship, the underlying drama for same-sex couples different from opposite-sex couples.  Perry 1078. Indeed, the underlying drama some same-sex couples may often very similar the drama ofsome opposite-sex couples. But the degree ofsimilarity between both kinds relationships not uniform throughout society.  For example, theunderlying drama what known figuratively asa shotgun marriage something same-sexcouple has ever experienced. 
The Ninth Circuit finds that, because both opposite sex and same sex couples have the capacity enter into harmonious, loyal, enduring, andintimate relationships, there meaningfuldistinction between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.  Perry 1078. But only one theseunions can result unplanned children. the relationship between adults who unintentionallyconceive child does not remain harmonious, loyal,and enduring, such children may raised only one parent. the heart opposite-sex unions biological asymmetry: women are more vulnerable tobeing left raise children alone.  The legal andsocial obligatory aspects the traditional institutionof marriage bind father his children and their mother.6 the view marriage aligned with the purpose Proposition then, marriage not aninstitution that functions award state recognition for adults who achieve stable and committed relationships.  Rather, this second view marriage, the institution designed restrict the freedoms males who prefer not partner with  William Blackstone, Commentaries the Laws England (1765-1769), available at: /blackstone/bla-116.htm  (the establishment marriage all civilized states built this natural obligation the fatherto provide for his children; for that ascertains and makesknown the person who bound fulfill this obligation; whereas, promiscuous and illicit conjunctions, the father isunknown) 
females child-raising efforts after conceivingchildren. When reserved for opposite sex couples,marriage therefore intended increase thechances that couples unintentionally conceiving willenter into stable and committed relationshipswhen they might prefer otherwise. 
The lower court blithely asserts that [t]here isno rational reason think that taking away thedesignation marriage from same-sex coupleswould advance the goal encouraging Californias opposite-sex couples procreate more responsibly, and adds that impossible believe that the people California could have conceived such argument true. Perry 1088, 1089. However, the Ninth Circuits new revisions the historical purpose marriage are the only thing thatmakes this untrue. Even the most basic logictherefore shows the plausibility what the Ninth Circuit could not imagine possible.   
The plausibility established the mere factthat there difference between obligation and reward. the state-imposed purpose and definition marriage that arrangementdesigned ensure biological parents commit tocollaborating raise their offspring, this imposes asocial obligation heterosexual couples enterinto matrimony. If, the other hand, the state-imposed purpose marriage the one that theNinth Circuit prefers  that the legal title marriage reward for entering into committed lifelong relationship  reasonable project thatmore opposite-sex couples will forgo it.  The socialdisapproval costs borne avoiding doing somethingone supposed even when not obligated (suchas recycling plastics, marrying after conceiving), are different kind from those borne failing toachieve some social distinction merit. The former denotes obligation imposed everyone certain situation, for which failure complyconstitutes violating social norm. The latter denotes special achievement social maturity, for which failure achieve can attributed variety causes: bad luck, divergent opinions about the merit such arrangements, mere lack ofinterest laurels. reasonable minds may disagree over which marriage model will have thebest impact the broader society, the choice therefore one that must left the people California. FCC Beach Communications, Inc., 508 
U.S. 307, 313 (1993). 
Same-sex marriage advocates might point outthat most opposite-sex couples marry without anunplanned pregnancy, without any intention raising children the first place.  However, the fact that opposite-sex couples sometimes marry becauseof inadvertent conceptions and other times not does not undermine the basis for rational distinction between the two categories. A classification does not fail rational-basis review because not made with mathematical nicety because practice itresults some inequality. Heller Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 321 (1993) (internal citation omitted). The inclusion opposite-sex relationships the definition marriage promotes the governmentalpurpose encouraging the two natural parents children whose conception was unplanned enter into stable relationship that would best forthose childrens upbringing. The inclusion same-sex relationships would not promote such purpose,and explained above, may undermine this purpose. When, this case, the inclusion onegroup promotes legitimate governmental purpose,and the addition other groups would not, cannot say that the statutes classification beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries invidiouslydiscriminatory. Johnson Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). 
The Ninth Circuit does not find persuasive that the voters could have had the encouragement ofresponsible procreation mind goal, because the Ninth Circuit does not see marriage the same way that the supporters Proposition do. Nonetheless, the encouragement responsibleprocreation legitimate policy goal and rationally related defining marriage the unionof man and woman. Laws Are Not Unconstitutional Merely Because There Are Other Ways Achieve Goal. 
The Ninth Circuit purports apply rationalbasis review its ruling; however, its decisionwere allowed stand, would severely underminethe purpose this lessened-scrutiny standard ofjudicial review. [E]qual protection not license for courts judge the wisdom, fairness, logic legislative choices. FCC Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993) (FCC). The Constitution presumes that, absent some reason infer antipathy, even improvident decisions willeventually rectified the democratic process and that judicial intervention unwarranted matterhow unwisely may think political branch hasacted. Id. 314. 
The Ninth Circuit claims that Proposition isunconstitutional because it once too narrow and too broad for changes the law far too little have any the effects purportedly was intendedto yield Perry 1095. However, laws reviewed under rational basis most assuredly not have tomeet such standard.  [T]he legislature must allowed leeway approach perceived problemincrementally. FCC 316; see also Heller Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 321 (1993). 
Detractors Californias Proposition mightargue that the purpose responsible procreationcould better achieved increasing child supportobligations for fathers who conceive without marrying, restricting the availability divorce. While both propositions may true, they are also irrelevant Proposition 8s Constitutionality. The people California have theright decide for themselves the ways which theywant either restrict liberalize their marriage laws  not. Moreover, virtually incontestable that almost any significant liberalization themarriage laws will have least some effect the broader social structure.7 Accordingly, would bethe rare marriage law change that would not rationally related some legitimate purpose. this Court has stated: 
[N]o legislation can supposed more wholesome and necessary the founding ofa free, self-governing commonwealth thanthat which seeks establish the basis the idea the family, consisting andspringing from the union for life one man and one woman the holy estate matrimony. 
Murphy Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, (1885). See e.g. Lynn Wardle, The Withering Away Marriage: Some Lessons from the Bolshevik Family Law Reforms Russia, 1917-1926, Geo. Pub. Policy 469, 470,479, and 489 (Summer 2004) (The Bolsheviks believed, along ideological Marxist lines, that marriage existed Westernsociety would eventually wither away, but that the new state should help that process along since bourgeois, monogamous traditional marriage perpetuated oppressive, unjust socioeconomic order.  The dissolution marriage would legallyfacilitate the advent true communist state.  Bolshevik family law sought transfer the responsibility child rearing from parents the state, since the family, together with allproperty relations, was considered the root all socialills.).  The consequences early Bolshevik family engineering were documented as: epidemic divorces; economic hardship women and children, particularly among the peasantry; increase shelterless (bezprizorni) children;and ultimately diminished social status for women despite the feminist Bolshevik rhetoric. See The Russian Effort Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic, July 1926, available 
Accordingly, the people California may make adistinction between couples who can procreateunintentionally and couples who cannot increasethe chances responsible procreation even that goal could achieved other ways. The problems government are practical ones and may justify, ifthey not require, rough accommodations  illogical, may be, and unscientific. Heller Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 321 (1993) (internal citation omitted).The Ninth Circuits arguments attacking the logic ofProposition 8s supporters could made against virtually any law set laws that gives benefits some but not others (such provisions the tax code, for instance). this Court has explained: 
But the Equal Protection Clause does notrequire that State must choose between attacking every aspect problem notattacking the problem all. enoughthat the States action rationally basedand free from invidious discrimination Conflicting claims morality and intelligence are raised opponents andproponents almost every measure. 
Dandridge Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486-487 (1970)(internal citation omitted).    
II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULING IMPROPERLY EXPANDS EQUAL PROTECTION LIMITS STATE ACTION. See Debra Cassens Weiss, Justice Ginsburg: Roe Wade Decision Came Too Soon, ABAJournal (Feb 13, 2012), available wade_decision_came_too_soon/ The Ninth Circuit Misinterprets Romer Evans and Crawford. 
The Ninth Circuit can find support for its ruling other than twisting select principles from Romer Evans. Romer, the Court struck down Colorado Amendment inexplicable anythingbut animus toward the class affects, with proffered justifications that were impossible credit. Romer 632, 635. Since Romer was the rare case where the Court took the extraordinarystep striking down law for having legitimate purpose, the Court took care emphasize thebreadth and far-reaching nature the law wasstriking down. 
The law struck down Romer  Colorado Amendment  was understood both the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court broad actually exclude homosexuals from participation the political process. Amendment explicit terms prohibitsall legislative, executive judicial action anylevel state local government designed protect the named class, class shall refer homosexual persons gays and lesbians.  Romer 
624. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguardsthat others enjoy may seek without constraint. Id. 634. Amendment removed protectionsagainst exclusion from almost limitless number transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life free society. Id. 631. A law declaring that general shall more difficult for one group citizens than for all others seek aidfrom the government itself denial equalprotection the laws the most literal sense.  Id. 633. other words, Colorado Amendment revoked broad rights tremendous financial andpolitical importance anyone (Proposition the other hand, about word). was this far-reaching aspect Colorado Amendment  the peculiar property imposing abroad and undifferentiated disability single named group and the laws exceptional nature which caused the Supreme Court strike downupon rational basis review. Id. 632. extend Romers reasoning strike down veryunexceptional definition marriage between aman and woman would open the door thenullification many legal classifications with whichthe courts disagree. 
Furthermore, not only was the law Romer Evans much broader than Proposition but the primary rationale offered support Colorado Amendment was objection homosexuality. Romer 635 (The primary rationale the Stateoffers for Amendment respect for other citizens freedom association, and particular the libertiesof landlords employers who have personal orreligious objections homosexuality.). The veryreason behind Colorado Amendment was therefore preserving peoples freedom disapprove homosexuality. This quite different from the rationales offered supporters Proposition 
The logic Romer striking the Colorado lawwas therefore partly found this rationale offered support the law. And the Romer Court recognized that the explanation the purpose thelaw constitutionally significant: Even laws enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often canbe explained reference legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantagesthey impose certain persons. Id. 
Finally, the Ninth Circuit decision states thatonly the act taking away same-sex marriageonce granted unconstitutional.  However, this rationale conflicts with past Supreme Court precedent Crawford Board Education, 458 
U.S. 527 (1982) (Crawford).  The lower court implies that even reasons other than animus could explain decision not extend the option martial union same sex couples, only animus can explain taking away that option once has been extended. Perry 1093. However, Crawford, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that once state chooses more than the Fourteenth Amendment requires, may never recede. Crawford 535. The Ninth Circuits decision and interpretation Romer Evans cannot reconciled with Crawford, and its attempts are unpersuasive. Perry 1084-1085. Proposition Did Not Take Away Rights, But Merely Re-affirmed Prior Democratic Decision.  
The Ninth Circuit relies heavily the argumentthat Proposition unlawful because functionedto take away previously granted right.  Perry 1085, 1088, 1092, 1095. However, review the history marriage laws California shows thatProposition did not take away any established right. Rather, the purpose Proposition wasmerely overrule the Supreme Court California,which had temporarily changed the definition marriage one that the people California neverintended. The Ninth Circuits description the California Constitution having previouslyguaranteed the designation marriage same-sexcouples strained reading the history same-sex marriage California. Based this reading, one would imagine the state constitution had eitherbeen written amended explicitly guaranteesuch right.  But fact, the State Supreme Court had merely re-interpreted the California Constitution this way.  See Marriage Cases, Cal. 4th 757 (2008). Proposition was therefore democratic act correcting overreaching state judiciaryrather than the withdrawal legal protections previously given. 
Traditionally, the marriage laws Californiaallowed only opposite-sex couples marry.  The California Family Code, after 1977, defined marriage personal relation arising out civil contract between man and woman, which the consent the parties capable making that contract necessary.8  The people California were satisfied with definition marriage which included onlyopposite-sex couples, and they passed Proposition the year 2000, which merely reiterated this definition.9 was only the California SupremeCourts sudden decision finding right same-sexmarriage that changed this. Proposition was therefore intended reverse this act judicialoverreach. Indeed, rather than being too broadly narrowly drawn the lower court suggests, Perry 1095, Proposition was quite tailored present thepeople with option change only what the California Supreme Court had changed. Specifically,California offered civil unions previously and Proposition did not remove them. Rather, Proposition merely re-affirmed the language aninitiative passed years before. Accordingly, the only party this political and legal back and forthwhich took away something already granted was the California Supreme Court. 1977, the provision amended was Cal. Civ. Code Section 4100. 1993, the provision was moved Section 300(a) the Family Code, reading: Marriage personal relation arisingout civil contract between man and woman, which the consent the parties capable making that contract isnecessary.  Wikipedia, California Proposition (2000), 

For the foregoing reasons, Amici respectfullyrequest that this Court grant the Petition for Writof Certiorari. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Paul Orfanedes 
Counsel Record 
Chris Fedeli Julie Axelrod JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street S.W., Ste. 800 Washington, D.C. 20024 
(202) 646-5172 
Counsel for Amici Curiae 
August 31, 2012