Katy Faust Amicus Briefs

8/11/2019 Katy Faust Amicus Briefs

1/34

No. 14-50196

_________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________________________

CLEOPATRA DE LEON; NICOLE DIMETMAN; VICTOR HOLMES;

MARK PHARISS,

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES;

v.

RICK PERRY, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the

State of Texas; GREG ABBOTT, in His Official Capacity as

Texas Attorney General; DAVID LAKEY, in His Official

Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of State

Health Services,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

____________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANTONIO DIVISION, CASE NO.

5:13-CV-982___________________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE KATY FAUST SUPPORTING

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND SUPPORTING REVERSAL

___________________________________________

David Boyle

P.O. Box 15143Long Beach, CA 90815

(734) [email protected]

Counsel for Amicus Curiae B.N. Klein

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2014


2/34

i

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Case 14-50196, Civil

Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1, the undersigned counsel of record

certifies that the following listed persons and entities as described in the fourth

sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. These

representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate

possible disqualification or recusal.

APPELLANTS:

Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas.

Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Texas Attorney General.

David Lakey, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of

State Health Services.

(APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS:

Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor General

Kyle D. Highful

Beth Ellen Klusmann

Michael P. Murphy

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL)

APPELLEES:

Cleopatra DeLeon, Nicole Dimetman, Victor Holmes, Mark Phariss.



3/34

ii

(APPELLEES ATTORNEYS:

Barry Alan Chasnoff

Jessica M. Weisel

Michael P. Cooley

Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr.

Andrew Forest Newman

Matthew Edwin Pepping

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP)

This list does not include the various amici in the case, especially since they are

not parties or parties attorneys, and the list of amici is growing. However, if

wished, a list can be supplied.

Amicus Curiae Katy Faust is an individual who has no parent corporation, or

any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of stock of that nonexistent

parent corporation.

s/David Boyle

Attorney of record for Amicus

Curiae Katy Faust



4/34

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS.i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....v

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1

A. GOVERNMENTS INTEREST IN MARRIAGE...............................................4

B. RIGHTS................................................................................................................5

C. FAMILY STRUCTURE...............................................................................9

RESPONSES TO COMMON OBJECTIONS........................................................13

I. I am not saying that same-sex attraction makes you a bad parent..............13

II. I am not saying that those in same sex relationships are incapable of

commitment................................................................................................13

III. But marriage has never been about children, because many heterosexual

marriages dont produce children.............................................................13

IV. But what about the childless heterosexual couple?....................................16

V. Some argue that two loving and caring men make a better home than a

drug-addicted single mom..........................................................................16

VI. But what about the hardship that many LGBTQ people have

suffered?........18

VII. Other threats to child rights........................................................................18



5/34

iv

VIII. Marriage should just be about adult emotional bonds...........................19

(ANTECONCLUSION)......19

CONCLUSION.......21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE22

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC COMPLIANCE 23

FORM 6. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)..24



6/34

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (No. 5:13-cv-982, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D.

Tex. Feb. 12, 2014))...1

RULES

Fed. R. App. P. 29...1 n.1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Def. of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. 104199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996),

codified at 1 U.S.C. 7 and 28 U.S.C. 1738C, overruled in partby United States

v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)..................................................................5 &n.2

Frank Ligtvoet, The Misnomer of Motherless Parenting, N.Y. Times, June 22nd,

2013, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-

misnomer-of-motherless-parenting.html?_r=1&.......................................9-10 & n.3

NPR Staff, What Happens When Kids Fall 'Far From The Tree', NPR Books, Nov.

8th, 2012, 5:58 p.m., http://m.npr.org/news/Books/163468489..............11 & n.4, 12

The Parent Trap(directed by David Smith; Walt Disney Productions 1961)15

The Parent Trap(directed by Nancy Meyers; Walt Disney Pictures 1998).15, 16

U.N. Convention on the Rts. of the Child (1989)....................................................12



7/34

vi

USA Today,Obama speaks on importance of fatherhood, The Oval blog, Feb.

17th, 2013, 9:50 a.m., http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/17/obama-

chicago-fatherhood-economy-gun-control/ 1925727/...................................22 & n.5



8/34

1

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The present amicus curiae, Katy Faust,1is respectfully filing this Brief in

Support of Defendants-Appellants, Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, and David Lakey, in

De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (No. 5:13-cv-982, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D.

Tex. Feb. 12, 2014)). I grew up with two lesbian parents and wish to discuss my

experience.

ARGUMENT

INTRODUCTION

My mother and her partner have been together since I was 10, soon after my

parentsdivorce. Since that time much of my life was spent in their home,

surrounded by their community of women. They were deeply involved in my

childhood and adolescence, and I have fond memories of them attending my

concerts, sporting events, plays, and graduation. Even when off to college,

studying in Taiwan on a Fulbright scholarship, during my career at the largest

Chinese adoption agency in the world, and as my husband and I began to raise our

children, I have remained in close contact with my mother and her partner. They

continue to be a loving and supportive fixture in my family.

1I wrote the vast majority of this brief without help from any other party or itscounsel, though my own counsel gave editing, formatting, or other help at the end;

and no party or its counsel gave money to its writing or submission,seeFed. R.

App. P. 29. All parties have filed blanket permission with the Court for amicae/i towrite briefs.



9/34

2

None the less, I oppose gay marriage. The foremost focus of my opposition

to gay marriage is the rights and well-being of children.

I want to be clear that my advocacy against gay marriage and for the rights

of children will never include condemnation of my mother and her partner or

details about their private lives. Unlike some in the gay lobby who often uses

children as pawns to forward their cause, I will not be sharing specifics about my

parents to advance my arguments. What you need to know about my parents and

their partners/spouses, is that I love them. They are worthy of dignity, respect and

privacy.

Some adult children with gay parents shy away from making their thoughts

about marriage public because we do not want to jeopardize our relationships with

those to whom our hearts are tethered. Unfortunately, many gay-marriage

lobbyists have made gay marriage the sole badge of loyalty to our LGBT family

and friends. The label of bigot or hater has become very powerful and effective

tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of

many gay lobbyists. However, those tactics are no longer strong enough to keep

me silent. Advocating for the rights of children, and how they relate to the

institution of marriage, is not something that anyone should be timid about.



10/34

3

For much of my adult life I was content to keep my opinions on the subject

of marriage to myself. I was (and still am) sickened by the accusation that I was

bigoted and anti-gay for my belief in natural marriage. For many years those

devices kept me quiet. I didnt seek a venue where I could share my views. But I

have come to realize that my silence, and the silence of others, has allowed for the

conversation to be dominated by those who claim that only animus, ignorance, or

indoctrination could lead one to oppose marriage equality.

You may credit the writing of this brief to a gay marriage supporter. In 2012

I began blogging under a pseudonym with the goal of centering the marriage

discussion on childrens rights and well-beingwhere the debates belong. But

several supporters of gay marriage considered my position not only wrong, but

harmful. So in addition to writing smear pieces on me, trolling myblog, and

attacking any commenter who was willing to support me, one gay advocate felt

that I needed to be exposed in the name of accountability. So he mined the

internet and revealed my identity. His cohorts shared my name on their own blogs

and told my husband that they knew who his wife was. This blogger wrote

slanderous posts on my church and published the names and address of our church

leaders for the purpose of intimidation. (The names and addresses have since been

removed, for which I am grateful.) Since I cannot be un-outed I am now writing



11/34

4

under my own name. Had I not been forcibly exposed in the name of love and

tolerance, I would not be submitting this brief today.

A. GOVERNMENTS INTEREST IN MARRIAGE

As you deliberate on whether or not to redefine marriage into a genderless

institution, the primary question is: What is societys interest in marriage? Is it to

validate the emotional bonds of adults? Is it to stabilize partnerships? Is it an

instrument with which to give a stamp of equality to our gay brothers and sisters?

Adults can, and should, be able to form consensual relationships of their choosing.

Barriers to a partners bedside in the hospital, shared property rights, and freedom

to live the life they desire should never be imposed upon by government. If

society's concern in marriage is adults, then by all means redefine this institution

which has spanned centuries, cultures and religions to suit that perception.

But the reality is that societys interest in marriage is not an adult-centric one

after all. Governments interestin marriage is children. When Congress enacted

the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)2in 1996, they had this to say about the

reason behind the legislation: [A]t bottom, civil society has an interest in

maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a

deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing.

2Def. of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. 104199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996),

codified at 1 U.S.C. 7 and 28 U.S.C. 1738C, overruled in partby United Statesv. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).



12/34

5

Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in

children.Id.

B. RIGHTS

Our elected governments primary role in this, and any legislation, is one

which protects the rights and best interest of its citizens. Especially the well-being

of those who cannot advocate for themselves. What more vulnerable individual

exists requiring such protection than children? Children do always not have

powerful lobbies, flashy publications, and lawyers tripping over one another to

offer pro-bono services for their cause. Marriage is one primary method used by

government to protect and uphold the natural rights of children.

Each side of this debate argues on the case of someones right. Those in

favor of redefining marriage speak of the right to marry and the right to

parenthood. Unfortunately, rights have lost their true meaning. They are now

popularly employed as a label for anything that someone really, really wants. This

is simply desire-based reasoning, which is entirely incorrect. What I am

referencing here is true rights. Rights which cannot be given by government, but

which exist pre-government. Rights which are self-evident, as our founding

fathers would say.

When you look at a newbornif there is no hospital chart or adults cooing

over her, cards from friends and family, a birth certificate in your hand - what do



13/34


14/34

7

ideal circumstances. Presumably, one could argue that some (even many) of these

children would be better off by certain objective measures if they were quickly

removed from their family of origin and placed for adoption. But the burden of

proof lies with the government to establish that parents are neglectful or abusive

before terminating their natural rights. Parents who wish to place children for

adoption must freely consent to having their natural rights terminated, and indeed

when this consent has been uninformed or deceptively obtained (or even just

regretted after the fact), heart-wrenching custody battles between biological and

adoptive parents have ensued.

Surely a parents right to be in a direct, custodial relationship with his/her

offspring lies not within the realm of property law, as if the child were something

owned. Rather, this right is a natural one that is universal and self-evident. The

childs right to be in a direct, nurturing relationship with his/her parents is its

reciprocal. Children belong to their parents only to the extent that parents

belong to their children.

When a child loses their right to live, at least on this side of the womb, we

severely punish the perpetrator. The loss of that right is nothing that government

or any human agent will be able to repay or restore.

The same is true of the second right - the right to belong to ones parents.



15/34

8

Step back from the gay marriage debate for a moment and look at the lives

of children you know. Perhaps look at your own life. When a parent has been lost

because of death, abandonment, estrangement, or divorce there is harm. There is

pain. The child grieves, is angry, and mourns. Whether it is a longing to know the

mysterious missing half of ones heritage or a life-long gaping wound, losing a

parent brings pain. It is a loss that cannot be restored by government or any human

agent. No mentor, teacher, grandparent, Head Start program or case worker can

take the place of that absent mother or father. Even if the parent resurfaces later in

life, each day that the parent was absent has been permanently lost.

This is how one gay father describes his daughters loss:

Sometimes when my daughter, who is 7, is nicely cuddled up in

her bed and I snuggle her, she calls me Mommy. I am a stay-at-homedad. My male partner and I adopted both of our children at birth in

open domestic adoptions. We could fill our home with nannies,sisters, grandmothers, female friends, but no mothers. My daughter

says Mommy in a funny way, in a high-pitched voice. Although Irefer the honors immediately to her birth mom, I am flattered. But

saddened as well, because she expresses herself in a voice that is nother own. It is her stuffed-animal voice. She expresses not only love;

she also expresses alienation. She can role-play the mother-daughterrelationship, but she cannot use her real voice, nor have the real thing.



16/34

9

Frank Ligtvoet, The Misnomer of Motherless Parenting, N.Y. Times, June 22nd,

2013.3

Why has there been a dramatic shift toward open adoption? Because there

has been a near-universal recognition that children benefit from having as many

connections with their family of origin as possible. It is why many states now

require that adoption records be open to children.

C. FAMILY STRUCTURE

To institutionalize something is not just to permit it, to live and let live.

With the redefinition of marriage, we are not simply allowing people to form

relationships of their choosing. They have been doing so for decades. I can assure

you that in the eighties and nineties, the community of women with whom I had

extensive contact were free to love whomever they chose to love. That has been

the case for decades in every place where gay sex has been decriminalized.

When we institutionalize same-sex marriage however, we move from

permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, topromotingsame-sex

headed households. In doing so, we ignore the true nature of the outcropping of

marriage. Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will alwaysbe

3Available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-misnomer-

of-motherless-parenting.html?_r=1& (last visited August 4th, 2014, as with all

other Internet links herein).



17/34

10

deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural

parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they

have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that

children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.

When marriage policy and cultural narrative deviates from the reality that

one man plus one woman makes a baby, we end up with scenarios such as the one

described by author Andrew Solomon:

When I met John, who is now my husband, he told me that he had

had some friends, Tammy and Laura, for whom he had been a spermdonor, and that they had a son named Oliver, of whom he was the

biological father. A few years later, they asked him to be a spermdonor again, and they produced a daughter, Lucy. A good friend of

mine from college had gone through a divorce and said that she reallylonged to be a mother, and I said how much I would love to be the

father of her child. And so we decided to produce a child through anIVF process. John and I then wanted to have a child who would live

with us all the time, and we decided to use an egg donor, and Laura,the lesbian who had carried Oliver and Lucy, offered to be our

surrogate as a way of thanking John for providing her with a family.So the shorthand is: five parents of four children in three states.

NPR Staff, What Happens When Kids Fall 'Far From The Tree', NPR Books,

Nov. 8th, 2012, 5:58 p.m.4(citation omitted).

This is truly human trafficking: manipulating children into existence to satisfy

the desires of adults. In Andrew Solomons post-nuclear family, as he calls it,

the four children living in three states were conceived with the intent to separate

4http://m.npr.org/news/Books/163468489.



18/34

11

them from one of their biological parents,see id.The desires of the five adults

were satisfied. The rights of the four children - to be known and raised by their

biological parents - were not.

The UN gets this one exactly right. Their Convention on the Rights of the

Child (1989), Article 7, states, The child shall be registered immediately after

birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality

and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.Id.

1. The right to something that you cannot produce yourself is no right at all. As

soon as a homosexual couple can produce a child without any assistance from

others, than they absolutely have a right to have a child and the right to marry.

It is not just about a child's rights, though that should be enough for any

court, political initiative or piece of legislation. It is also a question of the child

thriving. Beyond the superficial stereotypes, gender is a real phenomenon. There

are unique, complementary, and demonstrable differences between men and

women in parenthood. As children age, they benefit from daily interactions with

their father and mother. Even during infancy, studies have shown that children

respond differently to male and female faces and voices.

For those who feel that there is no significant difference between men and

women in a childs life, I hope that they would take that philosophy into every

other area of human interaction. They should not object to an all-male Supreme



19/34

12

Court because women, after all, do not offer a unique perspective. We should not

care if a low-income school district has all female teachers because strong male

role models are unnecessary. And, if all of that is true, I expect to see our

President surrounded by an all-female secret security entourage.

The reality is that to say gender makes no meaningful difference in any

scenario is silly. I am shocked when someone makes the case that genderless

marriage will not affect the most vital societal import of all - child development.

Children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their mother and father.

And if those parents are incapable of providing proper care of the child? The most

appropriate approximation of the family unit is their right; a male and female

union.

We have all the social evidence needed to authenticate the truth that children

need both sexes represented in their parentage. When a child is raised outside of

an intact family, specifically without the involvement of their father, we see that

the likelihood that they will be incarcerated skyrockets, they perform poorly in

school, live in poverty, fall victim to trafficking, are sexually active at an early age

and experience both poor physical and mental health. Fathers and mothers are

staples in the diet of emotional food that children require. Without one or the other,

they are emotionally malnourished.



20/34

13

RESPONSES TO COMMON OBJECTIONS

I.

I am not saying that same-sex attraction makes you a bad parent. My

mother was an exceptional parent. She modeled self-sacrifice, healthy

communication, and was continually nurturing and involved. I never

went through a phase where I was ashamed of her or her partner. Not

even that morning when I was cornered by a crowd of girls who were

taunting me for having two moms. I am grateful that both my

mother and her partner are involved in my childrens lives.

Conversely, being heterosexual does not a good parent make.

Parenting is a skill that gay or straight can learn.

II.

I am not saying that those in same-sex relationships are incapable of

commitment or fidelity. My mother and her partner could hold a clinic

on both of those. Fidelity and commitment are daily choices that

homosexual and heterosexual couples must make.

III.

Some object, But marriage has never been about children, because

many heterosexual marriages dont produce children. If that is the

case, then why have some gay marriage advocates sought, bought,

and/or trumpeted the studies which are aimed at proving that

children do not suffer any ill effects by being systematically separated

from a natural parent? Why then are many gay marriage supporters so



21/34

14

quick to point out that gay couples are, in fact, raising children

together, apparently as a means of demonstrating the suitability of

same-sex relationships for the institution of marriage and driving

home the moral necessity of legally recognizing their relationships? If

marriage isnt about children, who cares?

If they are right, that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and one

or the other is unnecessary, then perhaps Hollywood should make

anotherParent Trap. In the iconic 1961 film (directed by David

Smith; Walt Disney Productions),see id., twin sisters Sharon and

Susan meet a summer camp and realize that they were separated

shortly after they were born. In the wake of their parentsdivorce,

Sharon went to live with her mother in Boston and Susan went to live

with her father in California. Both girls, each longing to meet the

parent they never knew, devise an elaborate scheme to switch places

and ultimately reunite their parents so that they are separated no

longer. There was a remake of The Parent Trapin 1998 (directed by

Nancy Meyers; Walt Disney Pictures). While changing minor details,

see id., they maintained the heart-pulling storyline of children longing

to be reunited with their lost parent which so strongly connected with



22/34

15

1960s audiences. My children, when watching the more recent

movie, were tearful when the girls parents got remarried. My

daughter turned to me and remarked how happy she was that Sharon

could be with her daddy now.

If we were to remake that universally-appealing plot according to the

ideas and assertions put forward by some in the gay-marriage lobby,

we would tell Sharon to stay in Boston because her longing to be

known by her father is invalid. She is actually very happy only

knowing her mother. She is wrong to want a relationship with her

father. We tell Susan that she doesnt need her mom either. She is

perfectly happy with only her father regardless of what her heart tells

her. We tell them both that their feelings are illogical and unfounded.

For that matter, we should tell every child who has an absent parent

through death, divorce, abandonment or third-party reproduction that

their sense of loss is illogical. Have you met any of those kids? Are

they unaffected by the loss of their parent? Truth is, you will not find

a child in those gay-marriage affirming studies that have come to

their same-sex parents through any means other than death, divorce,

abandonment, or third-party reproduction. And yet the studies



23/34

16

show no ill effects? These are quite obviously mutually exclusive

outcomes.

IV. But what about the childless heterosexual couple? Does it follow then

that they cannot be married? Again, we need to take our cues from the

self-evident. Not every heterosexual union can or will produce a

child. But every child has a mother and father. If marriage is a child-

centric institution, then we do right by children when public policy

reflects this biological reality. Children are made by a man and a

woman. In the optimal scenario, they are also raised by them. As a

society, we should make policy to reflect that reality. The ideal.

V. Some argue that two loving and caring men make a better home than a

drug-addicted single mom. What fool would disagree with that? I

actually traveled internationally with two women who were willing to

adopt a girl with special needs. Those two dear women were game to

take on a child that no heterosexual couple in her home country, or

ours really, would adopt. Clearly, that child will have a far better life

with my friends than in an under-staffed, under-funded foreign

institution.

But lets be clear, in the above scenarios we are talking about degrees

of brokenness. For the child, there is no such thing as an intact



24/34

17

home when they are in a same-sex headed household. To join that

household they must lose one or both natural parents. Just because in

a few cases a child who has found themselves in a horrific situation

would be better off with two parents of the same gender does not

necessitate writing out of civil code the right to a relationship with

ones natural parents. Just like the children I know who are being

raised by their aunt and uncle because their parents neglected them.

Or the grandparents who are raising their grandson because his mother

is an addict. Or the child who is being raised by her single mother

because her father broke both of her mothers legs and now the two

are constantly moving to stay away from him. Brokenness finds

children and the people in their lives do their best to pick up the

pieces. However, we do not institutionalize, incentivize or promote

the grandparent-headed household, the aunt-and-uncle-headed

household or the single-parent headed household. Why? Because

public policy should not encourage or endorse the breaking of the

parent/child relationship because a couple, or throuple(three

persons) wants to have a family. Children are entitled to parents. Not

the other way around.



25/34

18

VI.

But what about the hardship that many LGBTQ people have

suffered? I understand and lament the personal and emotional

challenges that many same-sex attracted people have faced in their

lives. I grieve over the decades that some have spent closeted or

feeling as though they could not be honest about their inner turmoil or

attraction. The way to right those wrongs is throw open our hearts and

homes to our gay family and friends. It is to hire people based on

their experience, qualifications and education and not their sexual

orientation/attractions. It is to include them in our activities, parties,

and Thanksgiving dinners. It is to give them the freedom to establish

relationships and communities of their choosing. But the remedy does

not lie in eliminating the rights of children.

VII.

Other threats to child rights: I am not so nave as to say that gay

marriage is the biggest or only threat to children having access to their

mother and father. Pre-marital sex, cohabitation and divorce are

statistically a greater risk to children. But please note that there are no

wide-spread efforts to institutionalize, glamorize and legally

incentivize those family arrangements. Frankly, if there were? I

would oppose them too.



26/34


27/34

20

Should you choose to redefine marriage and promote a family structure that

necessitates the permanent loss of the rights of children, what counter-balancing

measures will you take? How many laws will you have to write to ensure that

children will not be systematically separated from the natural order of parenthood

in order to satisfy the desires of adults? Will you outlaw third-party reproduction?

Will you compel adoption agencies to consider gender as one qualification for

adoptive couples? Will you state that despite the newly redefined institution of

marriage, that children should not be separated from their natural parents except in

extreme cases of abuse or neglect?

Or will you possibly recognize that you cannot have it both ways? Truth is,

you cannot redefine marriage AND recognize that fathers and mothers are both

critical to a childsrights and childrensflourishing. What you will find yourself

doing is political double-speak as President Obama did in a speech last February.

Our President, who intimately understands the pain of fatherlessness, first said that

theres no more important ingredient for success than strong, stable families,

which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.

USA Today,Obama speaks on importance of fatherhood, The Oval blog, Feb.

17th, 2013, 9:50 a.m.5But because he has now evolved on the subject of gay

5 http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/17/obama-chicago-fatherhood-economy-gun-control/1925727/.



28/34

21

marriage, he had to add that loving, supportive parents can include gay and

straight parents. So how do you promote marriage and encourage fatherhood

when some marriages exclude fathers? You cant. You can either believe that

fathers and mothers are valuable and children have a right to both, or, you can

redefine marriage to promote a family structure where a father or mother will never

be present. Period. When gay couples have equal access to the institution of

marriage it means that children will not have equal access to parents influencing

and raising them the way nature intended.

You must either side with adult desires or side with childrens rights. You

cannot do both.

The choice is yours. Thank you.

CONCLUSION

I respectfully ask the Court to reverse the judgment of the court below; and

humbly thank the Court for its time and consideration.

August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

s/David BoyleP.O. Box 15143

Long Beach, CA 90815(734) 904-6132

[email protected] for Amicus Curiae Katy Faust



29/34

22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that he electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by

using the appellate CM/ECF system on August 4, 2014.

He also certifies that all parties or their counsel of record will be served through

the CM/ECF system if they are registered CM/ECF users:

Jonathan F. MitchellKyle D. HighfulBeth Klusmann

Michael P. MurphyOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)Austin, Texas 78711-2548

(512) 936-1700

Barry Alan Chasnoff

Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr.Matthew Edwin Pepping

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP

300 Convent Street, Suite 1600

NationsBank PlazaSan Antonio, TX 78205

Jessica M. Weisel

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP2029 Century Park, E., Suite 2400

Los Angeles, CA 90067-0000

Michael P. CooleyAndrew Forest Newman

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP



30/34

23

1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100

Dallas, TX 75204

August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

s/David BoyleP.O. Box 15143

Long Beach, CA 90815(734) 904-6132

[email protected] for Amicus Curiae Katy Faust

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC COMPLIANCE

The undersigned also certifies that on August 4, 2014, this brief was transmitted

to Mr. Lyle W. Cayce, Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit, via the courts CM/ECF document filing system,https://ecf.ca5.uscourts.

gov/.

The undersigned further certifies that: (1) required privacy redactions have been

made, 5th Cir. R. 25.2.13, if any in fact were needed; (2) the electronic submission

is an exact copy of the paper document, 5th Cir. R. 25.2.1; and (3) the document

has been scanned with the most recent version of McAfee Anti-Virus and Anti-

Spyware 16.8 and as per that program is free of viruses.

s/David Boyle



31/34

24

FORM 6. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)

Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation,

Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of FED. R. APP. P.

32(a)(7)(B) because:

X this brief contains 4846 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by

FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or

this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains [state the number of] lines

of text, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P.

32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(5)

and the type style requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because:

X this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using 2010

Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman font, or

this brief has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using [state name and

version of word processing program] with [state number of characters per inch and

name of type style].

s/David Boyle



32/34

25

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Katy Faust

Dated: August 4, 2014

Thank you for your time.



33/34

Uni ted States Cour t of AppealsFIFTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

LYLE W. CAYCE

CLERK

TEL. 504-310-7700

600 S. MAESTRI PLACE

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

September 15, 2014

Mr. David Christopher BoyleP.O. Box 15143Long Beach, CA 90815

No. 14-50196 Cleopatra DeLeon, et al v. Rick Perry, et alUSDC No. 5:13-CV-982

Dear Mr. Boyle,

You must submit the seven (7) paper copies of your brief requiredby 5THCIR. R. 31.1 within five (5) days of the date of this noticepursuant to 5th Cir. ECF Filing Standard E.1.

Failure to timely provide the appropriate number of copies mayresult in the dismissal of your appeal pursuant to 5THCIR. R. 42.3.

**You must electronically file a "Form for Appearance of Counsel"within 14 days from this date. You must name each party yourepresent, see FED R. APP.P. 12(b) and 5THCIR. R. 12 & 46.3. The

form is available from the Fifth Circuit's website,www.ca5.uscourts.gov. If you fail to electronically file the form,the brief will be stricken and returned unfiled.

Sincerely,

LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk

By: _________________________Renee S. McDonough, Deputy Clerk504-310-7673

cc:Mr. Ralph Joseph Aucoin Sr.Mr. Richard Arthur BordelonMr. Barry Alan ChasnoffMr. Michael P. CooleyMs. Deborah Jane DewartMr. Stuart Kyle DuncanMr. William C. DuncanMr. Thomas Molnar Fisher

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2014


34/34

Mr. Steven W. FitschenMr. Steven James GriffinMr. Robert Smead HoganMr. Lawrence John JosephMr. Jon Roy KerMs. Beth Ellen KlusmannMr. Daniel McNeel Lane Jr.

Ms. Mary Elizabeth McAlisterMr. Jonathan F. MitchellMr. Michael P. MurphyMr. Andrew Forest NewmanMr. David Robert NimocksMr. Leif A. OlsonMr. Matthew Edwin PeppingMr. Eric C. RassbachMr. David RobinsonMr. Dean John SauerMr. Michael Francis SmithMr. Kevin Trent SniderMs. Anita Leigh StaverMr. Mathew D. Staver

Dr. David Robert UphamMs. Jessica M. WeiselMr. Robert Paul WilsonMr. Russell Henry WithersMs. Cecilia M. Wood

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512768196 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2014

Katy Faust Amicus Briefs

Documents

Transcript of Katy Faust Amicus Briefs