Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
14-562, 14-571
In the
Petitioners,
Petitioners,
_______________________
_____________________________________________
Questions Presented:
II
ii
Table of Contents
Frontspiece......................................................................i
Questions Presented......................................................ii
Statement of Interest.....................................................v
Syllabus...........................................................................x
Tables of Authorities....................................................xix
Constitution and Statutes.......................................xxxiii
Jurisdiction..............................................................xxxiii
Publishing Statement re Font and Word Count....xxxiv
The Case Below........................................................xxxvi
ARGUMENT...................................................................1
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States does not Oblige any of the several
States to License a purported Marriage between two
People of the same Sex.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
B.
C.
D,
E.
Conclusion.....................................................................55
iv
Statement of Interest
Your Friend, Robert Brian Crim, born 14 August 1950
at Washington, Indiana, is a citizen of the United
States by birth and currently resident in the State of
Florida, where he has worked as a substitute teacher
and currently is employed by NewsBank, Inc., a news
archiving service.1 He is registered to vote in Collier
County, Florida, and has served in the past as a minor
official for Collier County's elections under Jennifer
Edwards, Registrar of Voters.
In 2008, at the general election held in that year, and
after carefully considering arguments for and against,
your Friend cast his ballot in favor of proposed
Amendment 2 to now Article I, 27 of the
Constitution of the State of Florida, which amendment
defines marriage in the State of Florida as the legal
union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of
all other arrangements.
In casting his ballot for passage of the said Amendment-2 proposal, your Friend joined 62 per cent of
Floridians majorities in 66 of Florida's 67 counties
in helping to make Article I, 27 of the Constitution of
the State of Florida law of the land; and, to the extent
your Friend may have had any doubts concerning the
1 The Friend has a degree in history from the University of California (Irvine, 1972) and a minor in physics; for eight years, he
worked as a laboratory technician for a company researching
development of agricultural poisons. He has taught classes in
the high and middle schools of Collier County, Florida, in
almost all subjects including biology, mathematics, English,
history, economics, and law. He remains on the list of district
substitutes but no longer is active.
vi
that the Court even will be able to read them all before
arguments are heard in April.
ix
particularly
is
true
of
budding
Although some of the petitioners are female and therefore not direct object of such concerns, the State still
retains significant interest in proper moral education
of male adolescents which same-sex marriage would
place in their care.
Although it's doubtful that adolescents learn to be homosexual in the same sense they learn geometry, a
shift on the part of the law from opposition to neutrality, insofar as same-sex marriage is concerned, makes
homosexuality appear more acceptable as a lifestyle,
particularly to younger persons whose sexual preferences are not yet formed.
Not changing the form of marriage allowed within a
State is one way to discourage alternate forms and,
given the clear interest the State has in moving as
many adolescents as possible away from unsafe sexual
practices, is closely tailored to a legitimate State objective and far less intrusive into genuine privacy
rights than, e.g., blocking homosexuals from public
employment, throwing them out of the military, or
having police bust into their bedrooms to ferret out sin
in the night.
Furthermore, not allowing same-sex marriage not only
does not stop homosexuals from marrying but does not
even stop them from marrying other homosexuals
homosexual males who see themselves as females
always can marry homosexual females who'd prefer to
be male. The State, after all, has no interest in how
homosexuals elect to classify themselves.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States does not oblige any of the several States
xiii
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the answer to each of the
questions posed by the Court in the above-entitled
matter is: NO.
xviii
Table of Authorities
Cases:
Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499 (1896).....20n.48
Anonymous v. Anonymous, 325 N.Y.S.2d
499, 67 Misc.2d 982 (1971)...............................41 & n.83
Ashwander v. T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288 (1936)............45n.91
Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw., 1993)............37n.77
Baehr v. Miike, 1996 WL 694235 (Haw.Cir.Ct.)...37n.77
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).......................42n.87
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191
N.W.2d 185 (1971), app.dism. 409
U.S. 810 (1972).........................................19n.46, 20n.47
Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir., 2014),
cert.den. ___ U.S. ___............................................35n.74
Bonanno v. Bonanno, 4 N.J. 268, 72 A.2d
318 (1950)..............................................................16n.41
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.,
2014), cert.den. ___ U.S. ___,................................36n.76
Boutilier v. INS, 387 U.S. 118 (1967)..........3n.2, 13n,30
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186
(1986).......................................................13n.33, 25n.55
xix
Miscellaneous Works:
Berkow, Robert, M.D., edit.in chf.,
The Merck Manual of Diagnosis
and Therapy (15th ed., 1987).........................3n.2, 6n.14,
23n.50, 41n.84
The Bible (RSV)...................3n.3, 3n.4, 4n.7,5n.9, 5n.10
5n.10, 5n.12, 6n.15, 8n.19,
9n.20, 9n.21, 9n.22, 9n.24,
52n.110
Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species &
Descent of Man (Modern Library edition)................1n.1
xxxii
Jurisdiction
By memorandum order dated 16 January 2015 in the
matters of Obergefell v. Hodges, # 14-556, Tanco v.
Haslam, # 14-562, DeBoer v. Snyder, # 14-571, and
Bourke v. Beshear, # 14-574, 574 U.S. ___, this Court
granted certiorari to hear two questions related to
construction of section one of the Fourteenth
3 N.B.: Absence of the word, sex. See infra at 37n.77 for explanation.
xxxiii
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not
Oblige any of the several States to License a purported Marriage between
two People of the same Sex.
2 Robert Berkow, M.D., edit.in chf., The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (15th ed., 1987) at 1500 [italicized passages
original; bolded emphasis added]; see also Boutilier v. INS, 387
U.S. 118, 127 (1967)(Douglas, J., w/Fortas, J., dissenting),
quoting medical sources. N.B.: The continuum of states, note
1, supra, especially among adolescents, Berkow, has been
known to the medical community since at least the mid-1940s.
3 Per Justice Kennedy, homosexual and homosexuality are
words modern in origin. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 568
(2003). To the Friend's knowledge, they are not even in the
Bible, though the word, dog, synonymous in original texts
with sodomite, is located at Deut. 23:18 (RSV).
4 Lev. 18:22, 20:13. See infra at note 12 for partial text.
5 Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982).
6 Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 319-320 (1980).
10
11
gress, enjoy a choice of means, even when the expression of that choice results in some inequality. 27 As
Chief Justice Earl Warren once put it:
[T]he Fourteenth Amendment permits
the States a wide scope of discretion in
enacting laws which affect some groups
of citizens differently than others. The
constitutional safeguard is offended only
if the classification rests on grounds
wholly irrelevant to the achievement of
the State's objective. State legislatures
are presumed to have acted within their
constitutional power despite the fact
that, in practice, their laws result in
some inequality.28 A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of
facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.29
27 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982).
28 U.S.Const., Art. VI, 3 states: The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State
legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath
or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust under the United States. [emph.add.]. The Court
long has recognized that no oath by any officer or agent can be
higher than another's, Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 64
(1981); Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 672-673, 676-677 (1892)
origin of the doctrine that a law comes to the Court bearing
the presumption of constitutionality. Cleburne v. Cleburne
Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439-440 (1985).
29 McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-426 (1961); also
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-632 (1996), citing William-
12
13
senting).
34 Zablocki v. Redhail, supra, 434 U.S. at 392 (1978)(Stewart, J.,
concurring in the judgment); Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162,
167 (1899); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-735 (1878); also
Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906). As the majority
opinion below points out, DeBoer v. Snyder, supra, slip op. at
16-17 [pp. 22-23], petitioners here have no answer to this all
of the arguments they advance in favor of abolishing marriage
and imposing some other form of contract more to their liking
can be marshaled to support Muslim forms of marriage, Hindu
forms of marriage, voodoo forms of marriage, incestuous
marriage, pedophilic marriage, or (as here) a claim of
marriage that is little more than a share-the-rent
agreement. For, as Prof. Clark points out, These people
[Polygamists] continue to be firmly convinced of the rightness
of their beliefs. Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations in the
United States, supra at 67.
The Friend has in his possession a photographic copy of a Declaration of Intention to become a citizen of the United States,
# 1442 filed in the United States District Court at Trenton,
New Jersey, on 15 January 1936 by none other than Albert
Einstein, to which is affixed what clearly is his photograph.
His declaration states under oath:
I am not an anarchist; I am not a polygamist nor
a believer in the practice of polygamy ; and it is
my intention in good faith to become a citizen of
the United States of America and to reside permanently therein; and I certify that the photograph affixed to the duplicate and triplicate here-
14
15
and one or more wives that accords status to their offspring and is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners.38 The definition does not include
same-sex partners precisely because of the contractual
infirmities such a couple brings to the table.39
In a same-sex marriage, who gets dower, who
curtesy?40 Who has the obligation of domicile, who the
obligation of support?41
If both partners jointly
38 Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed., 1998), supra at 7:871.
39 Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 254n.7, 522 P.2d 1187
(1974), reh.den., rev.den. 84 Wash.2d 1008. California's statute, as it existed in 1977, said: Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman
to which the consent of the parties capable of making that
contract is necessary.
West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code 4100
[emph.add.]. Petitioner DeBoer's contention that [n]either
the rights and responsibilities of the partners in a marriage,
nor the furtherance of any legitimate purposes of marriage, is
dependent on the gender of the partners (Petitioners' brief at
64) is false both in biology and law. See note 36, supra, and
note 41, infra.
40 The dissent below does contain a useful historical account of
what once was English law, much since abandoned. It also
contains ample evidence of Judge Daughtrey's personal biases
in this matter. But, Florida long ago amended its constitution
to void much of what once was called coverture, retaining as a
matter of constitutional law only dower and curtesy, which it
left to the legislature to determine. Fla.Const., Article X, 5.
41 E.g., Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 536 n.8 (1971). We
have, with the instant matter, finally reached the bankruptcy
of feminazi equality jurisprudence that apparently
commenced with Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979), on rem. 374
So.2d 895 (Ala.Civ.App.), writ den. 374 So.2d 898 (Ala., 1979).
The institution of Christian marriage (viz., the Christian form
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
51 Score another one for Moses (who well may have possessed
what then passed for knowledge of this very virus there are
monkeys, the suspected original source for the infection, naturally in Egypt and often kept for pets).
52 This disposes of the argument that AIDS primarily is
byproduct of promiscuous sex (see note 49, supra). A virus restricted to transmission via married anorectal lesions clearly
becomes even more dangerous than AIDS if it also can be vectored via mosquito. Anyone living in Florida should be quite
wide-eyed over that.
53 Cf. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949)(Jackson, J.,
dissenting). The issue before the Court is constitutional
limitations: Our concern here, as often, is with power, not
with wisdom. U.S. Railroad Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166,
175-176 (1980); see Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928).
24
F.
25
26
28
G.
29
30
31
32
II
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not
Oblige any of the several States to Recognize a purported Marriage between
two People of the same Sex when said
Marriage was lawfully Licensed and
performed Out-of-State.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
rank injustices from being imposed on their businessmen or directed against their citizens or their
treasuries.82
Additional considerations are relevant to voters like
the Friend: How, for example, is Florida to handle
fraud committed in another state that allows same-sex
marriage? In Anonymous v. Anonymous,83 the court
was presented with a party who successfully had impersonated a woman, fraudulently had obtained a
marriage with a man, then was dumped upon discovery of the hoax. If legal and binding in one State, is
such a marriage valid? Void? Or simply voidable in
another? Are there damages? Who must assume
them? Is the balance in any way changed where the
shemale, originally a non-functioning male at birth,
was surgically altered by the parents,84 then raised as
a girl?85
82 A typical discrimination claim, litigated to the fullest (as First
Amendment claims often must be) easily can cost a business
half a million dollars in legal fees, even when it prevails far
more than most small businesses can afford.
83 325 N.Y.S.2d 499, 67 Misc.2d 982 (1971).
84 See Merck Manual, supra at 1962-1963.
85 The complications only get more involved: The right to marry
implies the power to adopt to drag third persons not consenting to the propriety of homosexual relationships or activities
(or incapable of evaluating the same) into them by force of law.
Indeed, the question which should be asked in the instant litigation is not whether Petitioners should be allowed to adopt
more children but whether they should be allowed to keep the
ones they have. See Jarrett v. Jarrett, 78 Ill.2d 337, 400
N.E.2d 421, 36 Ill.Dec. 1, cert.den. 449 U.S. 927 (1980).
41
Courts are not competent to handle such questions, especially on spacious claims of equal protection or
due process; legislatures need to address them, and
voters have a right to demand from them presence of
moral standards and absence of unnecessary complexity in the law.86
B.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Conclusion
Petitioners, on behalf of a homosexual community
which arbitrarily pronounces its own moral choices to
be revealed truth and denigrates its critics as bigots
or homophobes professing fairy tales, want the
Court to become a legislature and impose upon the
country a morality offensive to perhaps two-thirds of
the polity and probably destructive of the most important social institution in Western society. To cover
such chutzpah, they parrot propaganda about how
nothing they voluntarily do in any way differs from
those they say are similarly situated and oppressing
them; and, they intimate that no reasonable man
possibly could oppose such pretenses unless that
man really were a fool or otherwise unfit for office.
The judiciary, they insist, including a supreme court
with six Catholics on it, therefore must abjure from all
reference to traditional values and decide the matter
by a moral compass appropriately demagnetized.
Such nihilism, we're told, guarantees rational results.
But, as fairy tale, we've seen the Bible to be
curiously wanting in substance, and the relevant
prohibitions therein, despite their origin 3,500 years
ago in pronouncements and miracles by the one, true
volcano god, to be supported even today by modern
science.119
militant homosexuals employ repeatedly in their endless efforts to relitigate the same claims until those to be benefited
thereby get the absolution they want.
119Some Jews and Christians perhaps won't be happy with this
revelation, but the Hawai'ians will be dancing in the streets.
55
56
Granted electorates can be fickle, and voters don't always get it right. But, judges no more are philosophers or theologians, and no lawyerly manipulation of
language can create a right where none existed. This
voter carefully investigated Florida's proposed constitutional revision and concluded: Marriage is and always has been a contract between a man and a woman in which the rights and obligations of the parties
are sex-specific. Within that framework, which States
have full power to impose, same-sex marriage is a
fraud, and if petitioners are to find any relief, it must
come from the polity or its legislature, not from panels
of unelected judges trying to impose their personal, religious views of the world onto everyone else by decree.
For the reasons given above, the answer to each of the
questions posed by the Court in the above-entitled
matter is: NO.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of March, 2015,
per:
___________________________
Robert Brian Crim, pro se.
57