Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 1 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

j:y jz-.j.'
w
'
a
,osp- j v E D
L.
'
IC'LL'
I'C.OWYER,CLEHK
U.tkC'OURTOFAPPEALS
Gary William Hallford, T-58516 -
j$
j
>
)
Mt
r$
;?1
. 5.
*
t7
tC!
$
d1
k;
Folsom State Prison, 3-81-27E FILED. -- ----
DOCKETED DATE I
NIA--
TI L
P.O. Box 715071
Represa, CA 95671-5071
In Pro Per
Court of Appeal for the Xinth Clrcult
)
Kristin Perry, et ) No. 10-16696 ;
)
vs. ) Ho. 3z09-cv-02292-VRW ,
) N.D. California,San Francisco
Edmund G.Brown, Jr., et )
) BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
Introduction
submitted an lnformal MOTTON permission to file this
brief on August 2010, and was received by the Clerk
this Court on August 20, 2010. As noted in the attached Exhibit,
was logged as being part of Hallford v. Mendez, 10-15381.
finally received a listing of the 320 docket entries, as well
as an exhaustive list relevant counsel, on March 2011.
As request to file this brief was devoid of the case
title, and the political implications of this particular case,
it is assumed the Court granted me leave to file this brief
per FRAP 29. Furthermore, as an unrepresented prisoner without
formal legal training, am broadly utilizing Circuit Rulels)
30-3: 32-5: et a1. àlso, FRAP 2 may be relevant due to the vast
complexity of this case, and the absolute impossibility to read
the entire text, or make sufficient copies for the Court's
For the aforementioned reasons, this text might lack certain
%
sophistication,Tbut should be included nonetheless.
 Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 2 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

Rationale Behind Brief

As a result of a highly contested election, Proposition 8
eliminated the ability of same-sex couples to be legally married
in the State of California. The right for same-sex couples7t6
be legally wed was a long fought civil rights matter which has
gone both ways in both public opinion polls, and in the social
consciousness. After having been legalized, a coalition of many
different religious orders, and political personnel, chose to
devote exorbitant time, effort, money, and judicial expertise,
into regaining the earlier prohibition. Conversely, those who
had been denied the assorted legal rights afforded to hetero-
sexual married couples, have fougùt long and hard to regain
their hard-won right to marry. As a disinterested observer it
would be quite easy to ignore the assorted disparities between
those ''allowedl' to marry, and those ''forbidden''# but from the
most pragmatic viewpoint, I see the validity of both arguments,
and must conclude that the only legitimate answer is for this
Court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs (Kristin Perry, et a1.).
The following argument should elucidate my position sufficiently
enough to eliminate doubt of my rationale:
Argument
The primary focus of the Defendant's position has appeared
to be their interpretation of religious scripture as defining
''marriage'' as a union between one man and one woman. While this
may be a legitimate claim fully ensconced in the 1st Amendment,
it does not provi A de them with the authority to enforce their
h .
doctrinal beliefà upon others.The Founders gof the Constitutionl
 Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 3 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

were adequately clear by stating ''Congress shall make no 1aw

respecting an establishment religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speecho..'î.
Since membership in a religious group is a matter of personal
choice, it is reasonably accepted that membership could be lim-
ited to those who think and/or believe in the same doctrinels).
This readily apparent by the innumerable varieties Jewish,
Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and other religious sects.
the group preaches a dogma someone is uncomfortable with,
they are free to join a different religious group. The same
is observed in political parties, social clubs, and virtually
everywhere more than two human beings congregate.
While there is significant concern that ''exclusion'' from
a private facility might show prejudice against someone's race,
creed, national origin, gender, or myriad of other divisors,
if ''prlvate'' there should be an ability to choose whom
the membership associates with. However, the exclusive party
is a ''public' entity (school, government license, et a1...),
both the 9th & 14th Amendments become significant enough for
interdiction of the deprivation. Section 1, of the Fourteenth
states: persons born naturalized in the Pnited States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any 1aw which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive an> person life, liberty, or property,without
3.
 Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 4 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

due process law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdic-
tion the equal protection of the laws.''(emphasis mine). Also
of note, is the short and succinct text of the Xinth: ''The enu-
meration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.''
From recent decades, thqre has been an Manti-intellectual''
segment of the population, who have effectively removed classic
literature from the classroom. Be the removal of Huckleberry
Finn, for Mark Twain's use of the word ''niggerî'; The Socratic
Dialogues, for Plato's reportage of homosexual acts in Athenian
bath houses; or assorted other explicit implicit bans, there
has been a significant attempt at denying educational opportunity
those who do not have Hregular contact''with certain minority
groups. When a person is denied access to various view points,
they are deprived of an opportunity learn the other person's
side of the argument. While the press tries to portray life's
conflicts as being linear, reality is far more abstract: right
or left; conservative or liberal; up or down; black or white;
ad infinitum; are not ''accurate''. There are far more ''shades
of gray''# than vhites or blacks....
Personal observation of those who agree with Proposition 8,
has been overwhelmingly from those who either choose to follow
a religious leader's dogma, or neglect to investigate the real
impact of the ongoing deprivation of the right to legally marry.
Almost every time the subject comes up, someone interjects the
o1d adage: ''Adam and Eve, not Adam and Stevem''Though they might
 Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 5 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

sincere in their beliefs, they are interposing them upon

others, and have done so contrary to the First Amendment, and
Article 1, Section 4, of the California State Constltution:
''Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination
or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does
not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the
peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
1aw respecting an establishment religion...''. (Emphasis mine).
The comment of ''licentious'', would appear more as a prohibition
against actions with minors, than between two consenting adults
(i.e.:Hugh Hefner can marry 20 year o1d at age 80+, but Jane
Doe could not marry an adult, when she is 8+ years o1d...).
In reference to the Ninth Amendment, personally can find
no legitimate authority to ban the contractual agreements between
two consenting adults who happen to be homosexual. To preclude
two consenting adults from forging the marriage contract (with
a11 the rights and responsibilities therein...), but allow them
sell property to one another, or rent property to each other,
or for one to hire the services of the other, contraindicates
any perception of ''equal protectlon''(as noted in 14th Amendment)
or the State's acceptance of ''rights not enumeratedW. disallow
the opportunity of marriage from one group, the RIGHT QF DTHERS
to marry, must be brought under scrutiny. Incidentally, those
who have been denied their right to enter into a matrimonial
contract solely on the basis of their sexuality, should place
liability upon those who supported Proposltion 8, any losses
incurred protection of their human rights.
 Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 6 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

CONCLUSI@N
For the foregoing reasons, and too many other adequately
reference, believe that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional,
and violates both State and Federal law. If discrimination is
allowed against one subset of humanity, it allows the de facto
discrimination of others. am currently prosecuting another
action against the United States State Department, over similar
age-related issues: Hallford v.Cllnton, 10-17547 (9th Cir.),
and can not in good conscience fight for one one group, while
ignoring another. Though I am heterosexual, have innumerable
friends who are members of the LGBT community, and have witnessed
the vagaries discrimination they face. Furthermore, a United
States citizen has an inherent responsibility to work to protect
the rights of others, and as Thomas Jefferson so deftly noted
in the second paragraph of The Declaratlon of Independence:
''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a11 men are cre-
ated equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.''When my neighbor suffers, too am
deprived of happiness; when another is treated with injustice,
too am affected, as are other citizens, and those who
visit. If we are to HLEAD BY EXANPLE''# we mustlto allow anyone's
persecution, be willing to persecute. refuse to follow that
ideology, and therefore compassionately ACREE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS
and ask this Court to rule accordingly.
DATED: March 12, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
> ?
.
,,
,Z
J
6. /
 Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 7 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

Points and Authorities

Cases Pagelsl
Hallfordv.Clinton,10-17547(9thCir.<activey); 6
Hallfprdv.dendez,10-15381 (9thCir.<activey); 1

Legal Authorities
CircuitRulelsl30-3:32-5:eta1., 1
California State Constitution,Article Section &;
California Proposition 8; 2o4,5 & 6
FederalRules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP)2& 29; 1
Pnited States Constitution,
First Amendment; 2&!
Ninth Amendment; 4
Fourteenth Amendment; 3& 5

DTHER
''Theàdventures of HuckleberryFinn''#by Mark Twain;
''TheSocratic Dialogues'' byPlato.

//
 Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 8 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

PDQDF 0F SERVICE
1, Gary William Hallford, hereby certify that I placed
the attached BRIEF @F AMICUS CURIAE, in a postage paid envelope
and deposited it in the Pnited States Mail, per the ''Prison
Mailbox Rulef', addressed to the following party:

Clerk of the Court

Office of the Staff Attorneys
Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

further declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing

is true and correct, and this declaration was executed on March
12, 2011, in the confines of Folsom State Prison, in Represa,
California. '

7è g' .
.

f
, ary William Hallford
Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 9 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

EX11(
1qBTT ''A''

EXIIIBIT f'A''

9.
 Case: 10-16696 03/15/2011 Page: 10 of 10 ID: 7687362 DktEntry: 328

R E c E kM E D
Mt
O LI
L
Case:1o-15a8q oalw/o/-
/yWi.vsczvwaog,eoktEntr
y:2o
J.s.YaUR
CO DT
WY
OFEA
a/
.CLA
PEEL
BSK G6' Ja/rA-s-
.
z..o#)-p,z-zz,zz
A% 2;2212 : oxJox7/5o7?
FI
DX
LED
KET'
ED I
MTE j
xax- #eye
1. /s
-s
yx/4-
,J: v'çgv;-o .
y/ '
o-/sgaj
Moh.-sJ/,-.
l Jw)-,+ zv,.
colo
/XJ:exz-s, -F-ir'm4,. ,,-wi/-
o of4'îpc t-zv'/, *.J -,Iloo--
>,?vovsrj .
.
:0,-A,-.-/ra-
. .. œ'

.
*
T $ee
e/ r v
n o4o .n -
/'
J ,k (
o o.
-J' .4
1 -..?
$eoy
yo
'
lu m,'
l
,v -z o
//, q. A,u,,'.rl;,- / ow+ie cupi zez-,
. 'y--(t./.L
?.cgà, yow,/czz-. >-
Z.-œc:
'b
fvo
/,4,/
%..'#à
- - fvAruwoveyx/-z-
. . J'ama- /k--v..zv?-f'
eppy''-
-
C4JF6t?,-J'
-e>j)/0-.4-, 7f'4ho p-eyuê5* ?'fz tqrt,sNx*;'zg
. .

Jocle: -,.4..w,4'
ovn /.
p.47/. #.Az.;/'- c/a ..144 ..w+-cy. u. /r .

r% Aw-
,
ef v.
zp rgcsrcl/'
,J, ,J,.,Jyzza,4O..-.
;b Aeï,w-l--
c
- r-J-c&>t wrcl
-
œ-zp-.,/.
y ..
;-,,,-
/v.y .//von-v--n/s --
.
/%zrs W oy/,
'
,
-a -lkc,r.-,1 micczm/r,ez
o tusu. sc-,,Jr Ju- J0,
:+
?f'
zAo7:/,o séosx .$-.+ /.z M.
gf-w,7 feAA'
c, J4/ J4li/o
'-'*''
+.

#.,s//-J/
,
vs-ip--zlirh
2
f. z'
1.