Template for Brief

Template for Brief - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1800 N. Broadway, Ste. 200 Philadelphia, PA 19100 Supreme Court of the United States of America ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) In Support of v. ) Appeal by J.B. and H.B. ) Texas ) ) ) Action filed: November 11, 2010 ) ) ___________________________________) Cramer v. Cal-Net , Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike 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 29 30 31
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
QUESTION PRESENTED Kenneth Grow Whether under Texas law, a homosexual couple who was legally married in Massachusetts and relocated to Texas and have since ceased to stop living together as “husband and husband is protected under the 14 th amendment equal protections clause and entitled to summary judgment of law allowing them to divorce in a state that does not recognize homosexual marriages? STATEMENT OF FACTS Joseph Pisko The legalization of same sex marriages has prospered throughout numerous locations within the United States of America. As a result, “defense of marriage” laws have been distributed to several states in attempt to enforce overall equality. Despite these recent additions of parity, the state of Texas does not recognize homosexual pairings in the following case. J.B. and H.B. were legally married in Massachusetts in the year 2006, but later relocated to Texas by 2008. In 2010, J.B. filed for a divorce in desperate attempt to regain his last name, as well as for general relief. However, under Texas Law the couple is not viewed as married partners, therefore voiding any privilege of becoming divorced. J.B. is appealing the current decision that identifies his marriage as inexistent, which violates the protection clause of the 14 th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause provides, “No State shall . .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 . It is “essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) . On the other hand, “the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most 2 Cramer v. Cal-Net , Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Background image of page 2
legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) . Consequently, disparate treatment of different but similarly situated groups does not automatically violate equal protection . Dallas Transit Sys. v. Mann, 750 S.W.2d 287, 291 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988)
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 10

Template for Brief - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online