20150529-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Bill Shorten MP-Re Court Records of Children's Horror Stories Living With Homosexuals

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5
Bill Shorten
Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc:
10
15
29-5-2015
Mr Tony Abbott PM josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Joe (smoking) Hockey Treasurer J.Hockey.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150529-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Bill Shorten MP-Re court records of

Childrens horror stories living with homosexuals
Bill,
20
25
30
Further to my 25-5-029015 correspondence to you, which also can be downloaded from my

blog at https://www.scribd.com/doc/266432695/20150525-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-to-Mr-BillShorten-Pm-re-What-Marriage-Issues-Are-You-Onm-About, I have quoted below court
documents of now adult who up in homosexual relationships lifestyle.
I briefly quote some statements but best is you read it all (as set out below)
QUOTE
In her brief, Dawn Stefanowicz described her experience living in a same-sex household.
I wasnt surrounded by average heterosexual couples, she says in her court brief. Dads partners
slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was
exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the
ilk.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
35
40
You see, two rights collide: the right to a child for gays, and the right of a child to a mother and
father. The international convention on the rights of the child stipulates in effect that the highest
interest of the child should be a primary consideration (article 3, section 1).
Here this higher interest leaves no doubt
I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and
before the European Court of the rights of man,
Case: 14-14061 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 Page: 28 of 44
(79 of 118)
16
45
50
for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad.

END QUOTE
QUOTE
Children lose forever knowing and relating to their natural mom and/or dad. Childrens identity
and security are robbed. What child does not need to know his or her biological ancestral roots, nextof-kin and genetic and familial characteristics (such as physical appearance, medical history,
disposition, ethnic and religious origins and other qualities)? When biological parents are reduced to
p1
29-5-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
2
just egg and sperm donors, children are purposely deprived of their right to their natural father,
natural mother and roots of origin.
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
QUOTE
Different men would come to live or visit with us for a time. They had sex all over the house: in the
washroom, hallway, my brothers and my bedrooms, and the recreation room and attic. A fatherless 18year-old artist came to live with us (my father also had sex with his younger brother who weeks later
committed suicide). Theyd go out cruising.
Men came home for group sex. My younger brother, unable to cope, was in trouble with the law,
dropping out of school in grade 9. My twin brother witnessed a lot, including group sex and gay porn.
By his late teens, he attempted suicide. Growing up, these events harmed us in many ways. I had a
twisted view of sexuality, gender, marriage and did not want to marry or have children. While still a
girl, it seemed better if I had been born a boy Dad even encouraged me to dress manly and wear
mens cologne. I felt very stressed and afraid. I never knew what my father and his partners would do
next, where they would go or who they would meet up with. His relationships were unstable. Even
when partnered, my father and his partner would still cruise for sex with other men.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Why does she oppose same-sex marriage? Its not something that a seal of approval should be
stamped on: We shouldnt say it is a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who
later in life will turn around and realize theyve been cheated. The adults choose to have that lifestyle
and then have a kid. They are fulfilling their emotional needs they want to have a child and
they are not taking into account how thats going to feel to the child; theres a clear difference between
having same-sex parents and a mom and a dad.
END QUOTE
The following of a male growing up without his father.
QUOTE
Even in the conditions of my home, which represent in many ways the best possible conditions for a child
raised by a same-sex couple, I experienced a great deal of sexual confusion. I had an inexplicable compulsion
to have sex with older males, which manifested in 1984, when I had my first sexual encounter with two older
teenage boys in my bedroom. One of the boys ended up having to go to the hospital for alcohol poisoning
after my mother discovered us naked and entangled. I was exposed to gay culture from an early age because
my mother and her lover had a number of lesbian friends. My mother was a devotee of Catholic liberation
theology and placed me in contact with priests and nuns who had radical
(68 of 118)
40
5
45
50
ideas about sexuality and gender, sometimes referring to God as She and
speaking in frank terms about the beauty of homosexual relationships. In her work as a psychiatrist my
mother also wanted to help poor lesbians and often blurred the boundaries between personal and professional
work, sometimes offering our home as a safe refuge for mentally ill lesbians. By 1985 and 1986, I had
moved past teenagers and wanted to have sex with older men who were my fathers age,
END QUOTE
Before quoting the court records in full with relevant internet addresses I will quote an email I
received from Gil in response to my correspondence forwarded on 125 May 23015 to you.
QUOTE
Re: Same sex marriages, then what about non-gender persons?
55
Gil
Today at 8:31 AM
To
Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p2
29-5-2015
3
Hide
G'day Jerrit
Always enjoy your words, hope you enjoy these, use as you want.
Cheers
Gil
10
15
20
25
GAY?
The term 'gay' used by homosexual people is a slang term no different to 'poofter', and should not be used as
it is a slang degrading and vilifying term referring to them as females as 'Gay' is a girlie name. It also means
to be merry--light hearted--addicted to pleasure--dissolute (lax in morals). So if we are talking to a person on
a serious matter and refer to them as merry--light-hearted, are we not denigrating them? To claim someone is
addicted to pleasure or dissolute (lax in morals) is derogatory and is also a form of vilification. These
derogatory terms shouldn't be used, we should all use the correct term 'homosexual'.
I recently met a very nice gentleman and as we shook hands he said "I am Gay". I said "Hello Gay, Pleased to
meet you", He replied "No my name is not Gay, it is Charles", I said "I am not sure what you mean". He said
"Gay means homosexual", I replied "Why didn't you say so instead of saying you have a girls name". He said
"Gay, did not mean a girls name", I replied that "I went to school with several girls whose name was Gay",
"It can also mean you are 'light-hearted' so may not take our conversation seriously". "No, he said I do take
our conversation seriously", I then replied "Well 'Gay' also means 'addicted to pleasure'", Charles smiled and
said "Aren't we all"? I went on and said "If you say you are 'Gay' it could also mean you are dissolute,
having lax morals", Charles smiled and said "That's interesting".
I am not sure how this works, I have never declared my sexuality when I shake hands with someone, maybe I
should; next time I meet a nice lady if when I shake hands I say "I am heterosexual", wonder how it will go.
Tried it recently with a bloke I just met as we shook hands I said "I am heterosexual", he replied "Thank
goodness, I wasn't sure about you, you have that funny look".
30
On 26/05/2015 11:45 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. wrote:
https://newmatilda.com/2015/05/26/greens-pushing-marriage-equality-be-legislated-november#comment106018
INSPECTOR-RIKATI
35
Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 23:42 new

Does Bill Shorten really understand and comprehend what same sex marriage are about?
The document can be downloaded from:
40
https://www.scribd.com/doc/266432695/20150525-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-to-Mr-Bill-Shorten-Pm-reWhat-Marriage-Issues-Are-You-Onm-About
While Bill Shorten on 26 May 2015 announced he will (next week) introduce a "same sex bill", he seems to
overlook my writings of 25-5-2015 that "non-gender" are not then included in a "same sex" bill.
45
Perhaps next he intends to submit amendment bills to provide for "non-gender marriages" and then while on
it, marriage of father and son? And why not up the ante and also introduce bestiality, community marriage
and paedophilia.
50
And if I omitted some kind of relationship I am sure Bill Shorten may just plan for it anyhow to be included.
- See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/05/26/greens-pushing-marriage-equality-be-legislatednovember#comment-106018
Constitutionalist & Consultant

p3
29-5-2015
4
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically
otherwise stated.
10
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to consider the
content appropriately!
15
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED
TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
END QUOTE
20
25
Dont give me crap that you consider the childrens interest and wellbeing because I have not
heard you utter a single word about the children being of paramount consideration. If it were than
I view you would oppose marriage being used for homosexuals as a way to try to get children
and subject them to what I view their kind of twisted perverse lifestyles.
Do note that I have provided the relevant internet addresses so you can check back that indeed
they are court documents accessible to the public.
.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Do you really want to escalate the ongoing suffering of those and other children? Is it more
important to you to try to become prime minister then the rights, wellbeing and interest of those
children, as to be willing to deprive them of their rights to have a mum and a dad so you can
harness votes in a political election?
QUOTE
This is where we are as a country. A black woman leaves her child in the car and 20 people call the
police. Twenty people have sex with a 3-year-old boy in the gay community and nobody calls the police
for years.
***
I happen to believe that adults should put children before their own needs, desires and political positions. I
learned that the hard way. Gay culture supports
END QUOTE
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federalcourt
QUOTE
Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay Marriage in Federal Court
By Lauretta Brown | January 23, 2015 | 4:24 PM EST
(CNSNews.com) Four adult children of same-sex parents have submitted amicus curiae briefs in the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that it oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage."
The Court, in New Orleans, La., heard arguments on Jan. 9 as it considers whether to uphold traditional
marriage defined as being between one man and one woman -- in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust all grew up with homosexual parents.
All four argued that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would harm children by depriving them
of a mother or father.
In her brief, Dawn Stefanowicz described her experience living in a same-sex household.
I wasnt surrounded by average heterosexual couples, she says in her court brief. Dads partners
slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was
exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the
ilk.
There was no guarantee that any of my Dads partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey
them, she said. My rights and innocence were violated.
p4
29-5-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion, Stefanowicz
explained. Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their
stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in
their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have
with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children
dont accept their parents partner du jour.
I grew up with a parent and her partner[s] in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool
of repression, retribution and abuse, B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. I have
seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families
are just like heterosexual ones.
Klein said she was taught that some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were
violent, and that homosexuals were much more creative and artistic because they were not
repressed and were naturally more feeling.
At the same time I was given the message that if I did not agree (which I did not), I was stupid and damned
to a life of punishing hostility from my mother and her partner, she recounts. They did this with the
encouragement of all their gay friends in the community and they were like a cheering squad. I was only
allowed out of my room to go to school. This could go on for weeks.
I was supposed to hate everyone based on what they thought of my mother and her partner, said Klein.
Peoples accomplishments did not matter, their personal struggles did not matter, and their own histories
were of no consequence. The only thing that mattered was what they thought of gays.
Robert Oscar Lopez who was also raised by a lesbian mother and her partner, had a different experience
which he described as the best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple.
Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting experts in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest
estimations of LGBT family life, Lopez wrote, but then went on to argue against same-sex marriage saying
that, behind these facades of a happy outcome lay many problems.
He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life.
He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager.
I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males, he recounted, saying he wanted to
have sex with older men who were my fathers age, though at the time I could scarcely understand
what I was doing.
The money I received for sex certainly helped me financially because it allowed me certain spending money
beyond what I earned with my teenage jobs at a pizzeria and in my mothers [psychiatric] clinic, he states in
the brief. But the money was not as impactful as the fact that I needed to feel loved and wanted by an older
male figure, even if for only as short as a half hour.
As early as ten years ago, I developed a clear stance on homosexual relationships. A civil union or some
kind of state recognition would have helped my mother and her partner, Lopez writes.
Yet the traditional marriage laws in New York State as they existed back then prevented my mother and her
partner from entirely cutting my father out of my life, he explained. The latter reality proved pivotal
because my re-establishment of ties to my father in 1998 led to a transition in my life, from being lost and
sexually confused to being stable and romantically fulfilled.
Katy Faust, who grew up with a lesbian mother and her partner also testified against gay marriage but
clarified 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.
When we institutionalize same-sex marriage, Faust writes, we move from permitting citizens the
freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-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 always be deprived daily of one gender
influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent, she explains, 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.
The 5th Circuit is still considering the legality of state bans on same-sex marriage and will issue an opinion
in the coming months.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Jan. 19 that it will consider gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio,
Kentucky and Tennessee with oral arguments in April and a ruling before the end of the current term in June.
END QUOTE
https://www.scribd.com/doc/240312276/B-N-Klein-Amicus-Brief
QUOTE
B.N. Klein Amicus Brief
Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,423|Likes: 0
Published by Equality Case Files
p5
29-5-2015
10
15
20
Case 14-50196 - Amicus Brief of B.N. Klein in support of Defendants [Document: 00512728660]
Case 14-50196 - Amicus Brief of B.N. Klein in support of Defendants [Document: 00512728660]
More info:
Published by: Equality Case Files on Sep 19, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved
Availability:
Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Flag for inappropriate content|Add to collection
See more
See less
No. 14-50196 _________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR 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 THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANTONIO DIVISION,
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-982 ___________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE B.N. KLEIN SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND
SUPPORTING REVERSAL
___________________________________________
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
David Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815 (734) 904-6132 dbo@boyleslaw.org Counsel for Amicus
Curiae B.N. Klein
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2014
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.
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 B.N. Klein 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 B.N. Klein
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
p6
29-5-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
.i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
...
.iv STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
.
..........1
ARGUMENT. ...1
I. My Story............................................................................................................1 II. An Uncensored Profile
of the Gay Community and Its Children
......11 (ANTECONCLUSION)
.
...
..
17 CONC
LUSION...
18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
0 CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC COMPLIANCE
21
FORM 6. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)..
22
iv
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
United States v. Windsor
, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)
...17
RULES
Fed. R. App. P. 29
...1 n.1
OTHER AUTHORITIES
The Advocate
...12 English Manif, http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/..........................................1 & n.2

The Killing of Sister George
(directed/produced by Robert Aldrich (Cinerama Releasing Corporation 1968); based on the 1964 novel by
Frank Marcus)
..5 Alma Routsong, writing as Isabel Miller,

Patience and Sarah
(1969)
.5 Michael Walsh,
Australian pair in L.A. convicted for making child porn with
adopted son from Russia
, N.Y. Daily News, June 29, 2013, 12:48 p.m., http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/2-convictedadopted-son-porn-article-1.1385895......................................................................................................17 & n.3
1
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
p7
29-5-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
I, B.N. Klein,
1
who have written under the pen name Rivka Edelman, am writing this amicus brief in support of DefendantsAppellants, Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, and David Lakey, in De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (No. 5:13-cv982, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2014)), to ask that Texas respect the definition of marriage as
one woman and one man. My interest in the case is based on the experience of my childhood with a lesbian
mother, her partners, and in the gay community in New York State in the 1970s and 80s; also, I am basing this
on my work as a professor and writer collaborating on various archival work to record the testimonials of
other children raised in unusual family structures. I have worked with Robert Oscar Lopez on his archiving
project at the blog English Manif.
2
I am also co-writing a book with him on the impact of what we call a modern secular ideology of child
sacrifice -- the use of children as sacrificial objects to please adult agendas.
ARGUMENT I. MY STORY
1
I wrote the vast majority of this brief without help from any other party or its counsel, 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,
see Fed. R. App. P. 29. All parties have filed blanket permission with the Court for amicae/i to write briefs.
2
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/.
2 I grew up with a parent and her partner in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of
repression, retribution and abuse. I lived with gay abuse for years. I have seen that children in gay
households often become props to be publically displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual
ones. My younger brother served this purpose. When he was in elementary school my mother signed him up
with an experimental open classroom and his progressive-minded teacher came for afternoon visits on the
weekend. He played lacrosse on his high school team and presented well in public. I was asked to put on a
defensive show for my mother and her partner even if they had not been criticized I was supposed to step
up first and say something like you cant speak to my parents like that. I was told that some Jews and most
Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent. I was told that gays were much more creative and
artistic because they were not sexually repressed and were naturally more feeling. Needless to say, that was
not my experience. But the time I was 11, I also found that the gay community had an obsessive
unhealthy invasive preoccupation with their childrens sexuality. They in fact encouraged sexual
activitybecause they were open.
My mother told me often that being a virgin was for the stupid. Having parents and the adults around you
encouraging and pushing sexual activity is not
3 being open. It is being abusive and controlling and showing that they indeed see a child as merely an
extension of themselves and not as a separate human being. Much of the gay community I knew was based
on two things sex and hate. I knew about the edgy lesbian BMSD clubs at age 13 although I really did not
completely grasp what they were about. For a long time I expected studies to be done. I kept in touch with
some of the others that grew up there and we waited to be asked. We were going to tell what it was like back
there in that place. Nobody ever asked us. Recently, I spoke to a man who grew up there and I heard his
mother had died and I wrote him a note and said I was sorry; she was a nice lady.
He wrote me back and said, Nice is not what she was but that is all blood under the bridge. I knew what he
meant.
I will state clearly I was not against same-sex civil marriage. I realize that people do not, nor should they, all
share the same belief system. My position has changed and that saddens me because I never wanted to see
myself as the kind of person that would say anything against people in the gay community. I hoped that
SSM (same-sex marriage) would not carry with it the demand for children. I took it at face value and
assumed it was to provide the same financial and other legal rights to adults as opposite-sex marriage did.
4 When I was growing up only a tiny percentage of the people in the community had children, often the
unsightly remnants of their parents former marriages. Children in the lesbian section of the gay community
p8
29-5-2015
9
were seen as the result of male oppression or later as proof that women dont need men and everything is
even Steven. Well, it isnt.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
After my parents divorced I grew up in a lesbian household in the 1970s in a suburb of New York City.
While they were still married my mother had two lesbian lovers. The first one, J, lived in the family
home and treated me well. After J left my mother was involved with Dr. B, who disliked me but tried to
keep her feelings in check, not always successfully. These women asserted adult power over me as if they
were a parent. I realized by age five that they were not a parent. When I was 14 my mother moved in with the
woman that would be her partner until she died. They lived in a nearby suburb of New York. The house
belonged to the partner and was in a constant state of disrepair. There was a hole in the floor upstairs that
looked down into the kitchen. Neither my mother nor her partner worked although they were active in Gay
Liberation causes and this was very important work. The partner drank an entire bottle of alcohol a night.
My mother did not drink as she was more progressive and preferred whatever drug was in style. Drugs were
plentiful in the gay community and no stigma was attached to them and they were taken openly.
5 Meals were infrequent and when they were made they were either burnt or raw. I weighed 80 lbs. at age 16.
But perhaps the hardest aspect was the fact that I had to pay constant homage and attention to their gayness. I
had to read
Patience and Sarah
(by Alma Routsong, writing as Isabel Miller (1969)), I had to view The Killing of Sister George
(directed/produced by Robert Aldrich (Cinerama Releasing Corporation 1968); based on the 1964 novel by
Frank Marcus). Conversely, I never went to a school dance, I never had a party, and because the house
was dirty I was ashamed to bring any friends over. If I had a friend who came by to pick me up, both
my mother and her partner would fish for opportunities to show them how narrow-minded and
provincial they were. Gay was the intellectual avant-garde elite and only the most trite-minded bigot
would judge people. The fact is that their gayness dictated everything, who their friends were, what they read,
where they went on short vacations. We were completely seeped in a culture that held the dominant
heterosexual culture of marriage and children in utter contempt. They hated any religious person: most Jews
(which I was) and every Christian. They hated people that had office jobs for corporations, and they hated
women that were on the PTA or drove to car pool or volunteered at the school book sale. The hated
Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Junior League. They hated anything and everyone
heterosexual because they were gay
6 and thus superior in intelligence, in taste, in open-minded outlooks. This was not overcompensation for
being marginalized; this was exactly how they felt about other people. It was an obsession shared with many
of their friends and acquaintances.
Every waitress was told to please get some more water for my lover. Every clerk was told we are
together, in purposeful condescending and abusive ways reserved for those who work hard for very little
pay. Every person that ever waited on them, fixed their car, or delivered a package to the door had to be
informed that they were gay. This was done in somewhat sophisticated and nuanced ways but the end game
was to trap the other person into tipping their hand and revealing their bigotry. Then they would either berate
the person or ask to speak with a manager. I would stand nearby feeling embarrassed and sad for the person.
It sometimes turned out that the person was a classmates mother or brother. And that would make my life in
school even more difficult. As a child and a teenager, this was not only scary and embarrassing; it was
crippling. I was supposed to hate everyone based on what they thought of my mother and her partner.
Peoples accomplishments did not matter, their personal struggles did not matter, and their own histories were
of no consequence. The only thing that mattered was what they thought of gays. This created in me a kind of
arrogance and tunnel vision that no child or young person should have because it is
55
60
7 narrow-minded and mean-spirited. It does not see people as complex or generous or kind. The second
problem is that it does not help anyone to get along in the world when they are taught to hold 99.9% in
contempt. At the same time I was given the message that if I did not agree (which I did not), I was stupid and
damned to a life of punishing hostility from my mother and her partner. They did this with the encouragement
of all their gay friends in the community and they were like a cheering squad. I was only allowed out of my
room to go to school. This could go on for weeks. My life with my lesbian mother and her partner did not get
p9
29-5-2015
10
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
easier as I got older. When I was in 9th grade I was in an accident and sustained a compound spiral fracture of
my right tibia and fibia. I was in the hospital several weeks, almost always alone. My mother did not like the
looks that the nurses gave her.
Being left alone was better than having to deal with my mothers partner who felt I milking it for more
attention. The leg never healed and infection set in and 10 months later when the cast came off I could hardly
walk. My leg was very deformed, bent with a large bulge. I was in constant and severe pain. I could not even
walk across the kitchen without crying from the pain. I complained from June until the following September
and finally I was taken to the doctor. I was in told on the way that he was going to confirm I was just being a
baby and milking it An X-ray showed that the bones had not fused correctly and
8 there was extensive damage. I had several surgeries all alone, and I still limp. They took the cat to the vet
more often than I saw a doctor. Now we could say they were irresponsible but every other adult that passed
through the house agreed with them
I was pretending it hurt for attention. I just wanted attention. Finally someone called Child Protective
Services and I was lucky enough to be put in the home of Eileen and Daniel M. a couple of towns over. This
is where I really first saw how heterosexual couples behaved. I saw teachers; they stood or sat in front of the
class. I saw mothers pick up their children after school. They were behind the wheel. I also saw people
walking in public. But I had never seen or could even fathom how families operated. It had all been presented
to me as something on a much lower level than what the gay community was striving for. I had no idea what
the daily interaction between a husband and wife looked like. I had no idea how two heterosexuals behaved
toward their children as mother and father. Because of my surgeries and my family situation I never finished
high school. I was given no encouragement, and no help to catch up on what I missed. Along a similar line
neither my mother nor her partner would teach me to drive or allow anyone else to do so. I was trapped inhouse with them. At this point my mother and her partner were bringing a lawsuit against my father for
money. He had married a woman who had no interest in his children except she wanted to
9 immigrate to Israel and felt children would make her more eligible for monies from the Jewish Agency, so
they offered me a trip to Israel and neglected to say the ticket was one way. I did not tell my mother because I
knew I needed to get away from them and I thought this was my chance. We arrived on a Monday in Tel
Aviv and they told me to leave their apartment on Tuesday night. My mother refused to help me with a ticket
back to the States. I did not speak the language. I was 17 and had no skills. Ten months later I had scraped
together 300 dollars by selling some rings my grandmother gave me and I took a plane for $40 to Athens and
a bus from Athens to London and then a $99 flight on Freddie Laker. Since I had no high school I could not
get into a college. I discovered the BEOG/PELL Grant and enrolled in a local community college that did not
require a high school diploma. I lived on friends couches and basements and with my grandmother in her
senior citizens government-subsidized apartment. My mother and her partner never gave me a penny. After
my first semester I was accepted to a four-year state university. I called my mother to tell her. I thought she
might be proud or happy for me. Instead she said that I was too stupid and too ignorant and the university
made a mistake and all her friends, anyone that knew me, agreed I was a zilch and a washout.
10 My mother had a rich gay friend named John. He had a large home in West Nyack or Nyack. My mother
said that as long as I did not steal anything he might hire me to clean his toilets. I knew about this man
because he tried to have sexual relations with my younger brother when my brother would mow his lawn. I
protested and said I was going to go to college. She said I had no money and I would just fail and make a fool
of myself because I could not spell, I did not know my multiplication tables and how she, an educated
woman, ever had me was a mystery. Her partner was drunk and shouting in the background and I told my
mother I was sick of the crazy gays and that she should grow up. I repeated I was accepted to college and I
was going in January. I was able to go to the State University of New York. Before the end of my first
semester my mother called the university to speak to an administrator. She told them that she knew I cheated
on an exam and I should be expelled. My professor and advisor M.K. called me into his office and told me
about the conversation he had with my mother. I was heartbroken. I had been trained to never be believed. I
simply accepted the guilty verdict and just stood there in tears. He said he knew it was not true because the
class did not have any exams. He also told me to stay away from my mother and her partner. He
p10
29-5-2015
11
explained that they were unhealthy and abusive. These were terms I never heard and did not
understand at the time. He became a surrogate parent for the rest of my time in college.
10
15
20
25
30
35
11 I had never had a boyfriend or any male interest because while my mother was preoccupied with my
sexuality she was only preoccupied if it matched her values. So in some ways I was not allowed to have
sexuality. I was not allowed to express in physical dress anything feminine this was mocked as tasteless
and vulgar and silly (unless it was a butch-femme couple, which was much rarer than butch-butch). I was
allowed to knit and sew but this is because their utilitarian value exceeds their female category. I did not
know how to flirt or dress.
II. AN UNCENSORED PROFILE OF THE GAY COMMUNITY AND ITS CHILDREN
While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in
my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake, or a political tool to
be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog and pony show to impress the well-meaning. While society may
have evolved into acceptance, the gay community has shown over and over that it is hasnt changed
drastically regarding these attitudes. Observe the children taken by gay adults to gay pride parades where
toddlers and pre-teens are exposed to disturbing, hyper-sexualized displays. Having grown up in that
community and a lesbian household, I do not conflate lesbians and gay men as the same or having a shared
interest. Even when I was growing up the community was dominated both culturally and economically
12 by men. Now everything LBGT is primarily a mens rights movement and is not in concert with either the
best interest of children or women. It has become clear to me that my initial thought that perhaps marriage
would normalize things into the future was wrong. Perhaps if it was not a male-dominated entity it would
be different but it is male-dominated. And this can be verified in 100 little ways because the community does
little inside to conceal this fact. Count the words of men in the Advocate compared to women. Count the
bloggers, the activists. Do not be nave and imagine some kind of equality going on. It is a mens rights
movement and is misogynistic. Most women can get pregnant and have a child so the discussion is essentially
about men. A child is neither a right nor the natural consequence of same-sex marriage. People knew this
going in. Society does not owe people other peoples children because they are the cause clbre and are in a
high tax bracket. Nobody elected or appointed has the right to give over human lives to people on demand or
to institute reproductive slavery because it makes them feel and appear briefly progressive and enlightened.
This is the direction this is headed 3rd World women are already in breeding compounds. And what this
does is create an illusion presented publically. The only image of gay families you will ever see are crafted
and controlled balloons and ice cream cones, ponies so that photogenic
40
45
50
55
60
13 end results are displayed but exploitative means to create such families are hidden, as are the effects on the
children over the long course of their lives. I actual believe very strongly that what goes on between two
adults is their own business. If people believe that civil marriage is indeed a right, who am I to say it isnt? I
certainly respect the Supreme Court Justices and their interpretations of the Constitution. But they left
an opening. I urge you, to take it. I believe as long as two people are not hurting anyone they should have the
same rights as I have. But SSM extended past two people. It is a Trojan horse that will damage women and
children. It also strays as far as you can get from not hurting anyone else and between two adults. Using
one woman to harvest eggs from and another as the long-term gestation uterus goes beyond two people. Next
add a third, a child. I count three people. And not hurting? Who says not hurting? Those profiting
from the transaction. I do not believe that children abused in the gay community have the ability to
safely come forward or be received and protected and believed. In the current climate, people are too
afraid of being called homophobic and a bigot. I do not believe that researchers have made even the
smallest attempt to speak to those of us who are independent adults and do not need to tap-dance anymore. It
took me years to get to this place consider that, please care about that. I have spent much of my life in
fear. I know that I may well be slandered and harassed over the
14 Internet and beyond. Since I am a woman I may be targeted for violent threats.
Maybe an activist or two or three will try get me fired from my job, have my family evicted from our
home. I realize that this brand of abuse, silencing and shaming can extended past my place of work and past
p11
29-5-2015
12
10
my family to include others. I even, in a preemptive measure, contacted an attorney. So even all these years
later I am still scared. I know their abuse. I have been their victim. They are not victims. Please have a tiny
bit of intellectual honesty. From the time I was in college until she died I never spoke about my mother or my
childhood. I even went so far as to allow people to believe that she might be dead. She never expressed an
interest in my life or even seeing her grandchild. Our relationship was only over the phone for many years.
And then when she did die the relief I felt when my mother and then her partner died was profound. I knew
they could never hurt me again. Was there sadness? Some for my mother, none for her partner of 25 years
none. I try my best to remember good things about my mother. She was the best judge of contemporary
poetry and literature I have ever known. She was skilled, even talented with a needle or two. I know from
my own experience and from the experience of others that the adult gay abusers will be protected by
other adults and the child will not be protected. So I am not saying there is necessarily more abuse in
homes with gay parents, but I am saying that in the gay world abusers are protected and the victim
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
15 punished. In fact a child that speaks out or complains runs the very real risk of suffering even
more. They will be ostracized, overly controlled and cut off from contact others. They will be called a
liar or a troublemaker and they will be given little if any financial support. I have known others that
grew up in the gay community that were cut off financially as a means of punishment, control and
abandonment. This pattern mirrors heterosexuals where only one or no parent is biologically related to
the child. For me it caused lifetime poverty. I put myself through undergraduate at The State University of
New York and graduate school at the University of Virginia. As a woman I earned less. I am still paying back
student loans. I developed Crohns disease right after my daughter was born, which left me with large
medical bills and often unable to work. I am not alone in this regard. Within the gay community, abusers
have complete impunity and complete protection from a code of honor that puts gay adults first. Then
there is a network of social and legal services that do not and will never consider the best interest of a
child. If you imagine that children are not aware of this you are mistaken. I certainly knew that no one
would help me ever no matter what. A heterosexual child in the gay community suffers, day in and day
out. One might argue that with societal acceptance this will normalize but I do not believe it will. In fact
there are too many indications that it wont. Gay
16 neighborhoods speak to a desire to not assimilate. Gay clubs, vacations, resorts, and cruises all stand for
insulation and rejection of the larger culture. Unless someone can 100% guarantee gay parents will somehow
have gay children. From my experience and the experience of my cohort in both lesbian and gay homes this
will harm children. Consider the fact that gay men are more than willing to pay money and have a woman
risk her life taking super-ovulation drugs. They then have harvested eggs implanted in a different woman,
risking her life too. There is a disregard for women and mothers on top of the questionable posture toward
children in the community. What the even the most educated, lan-radiating, liberal urbane heterosexual
knows about gay culture is only a very narrow slice. I am now against gay marriage because it is a Trojan
horse. I say that
gay rights are male rights and not in the best interest of either the women they want to use for egg
harvesting or as a gestating uterus. We would see denied mother rights and hence human rights. The
push for gay marriage is also about money, not fairness or equality or civil rights. Fertility should
not be a profit-driven business that requires the body parts of two human females serving as breeders for a
class of wealthy elite males. Men cant get pregnant; that is okay, no need to pathologize it. They have
survived maleness for millions of years.
17 The Supreme Court said when they spoke about dignity in the United States v. Windsor decision (133
S. Ct. 2675 (2013)), that everybody deserves dignity, see id. Dignity includes children. A child that is
silenced and intimidated has no dignity. Do courts extend dignity to children? Abuse by gay adults is
reported only when the abuse is so obvious there is no way for the community to hide it, and gayfriendly spokespeople have to address it, usually with some kind of disclaimer. Those are the extreme
cases, rare cases. But even in those cases it was not the community that reported it. On the contrary,
many men that identified as gay and were out and active in the gay community had sex with the son
of their friends. In a most egregious case involving Mark Newton and Peter Truong, they were frontpage news as Gay Fathers of The Year even as they were using their helpless baby as an international
p12
29-5-2015
13
10
15
sex slave; see, e.g., Michael Walsh, Australian pair in L.A. convicted for making child porn with adopted
son from Russia, N.Y. Daily News, June 29, 2013, 12:48 p.m.
3
This is where we are as a country. A black woman leaves her child in the car and 20 people call the
police. Twenty people have sex with a 3-year-old boy in the gay community and nobody calls the police
for years.
***
I happen to believe that adults should put children before their own needs, desires and political positions. I
learned that the hard way. Gay culture supports
3
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/2-convicted-adopted-son-porn-article-1.1385895.
30
18 punitive measures, which runs counter to everything we know about parenting, which is not good for
children. Do you imagine these behaviors are just brought out for politics or a Mozilla executive like Brendan
Eich? The disproportionate retribution against people who threaten gay self-definition is a powerful streak in
the gay community, and children will bear the brunt of much of that inside the home. Can stepparenting
work? Sure, sometimes. Everything works sometimes. But that does not mean it is in the best interest of the
child. It means it serves the adults interest first. The child did not choose the partner and has no say. This is
true of heterosexuals and gays. Except all children in a same-sex family have a stepparent and only a
percentage of the others do. It is unfair to bring a child into the world as just property and that is what
such a child is. Because the redefinition of marriage is bound to expand same-sex parenting and make
it increasingly difficult for children of gay parents to contest their situation, I ask the Court to do the
sound and prudent thing: Please keep the definition of marriage in Texas as one man and one woman.
CONCLUSION
Amicus respectfully asks the Court to reverse the judgment of the court below; and humbly thanks the Court
for its time and consideration. August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
35
19 s/David Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815 (734) 904-6132 dbo@boyleslaw.org Counsel for
Amicus Curiae B.N. Klein
20
25
40
45
20
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. Mitchell Kyle D. Highful Beth Klusmann Michael P. Murphy OFFICE
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 Plaza San Antonio, TX 78205 Jessica M. Weisel
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 2029 Century Park, E., Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA
90067-0000 Michael P. Cooley Andrew Forest Newman AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
50
55
60
21 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75204 August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted, s/David Boyle
P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815 (734) 904-6132 dbo@boyleslaw.org Counsel for Amicus Curiae
B.N. Klein
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
p13
29-5-2015
14
10
15
20
22
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 4825 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
25
23 Attorney for Amicus Curiae B.N. Klein Dated: August 4, 2014 Thank you for your time.
30
35
40
45
United States Court of Appeals

FIFTH 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 Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815 No. 14-50196 Cleopatra DeLeon, et al v.
Rick Perry, et al USDC No. 5:13-CV-982 Dear Mr. Boyle, You must submit the seven (7) paper copies of your brief required by 5
TH CIR. R. 31.1 within five (5) days of the date of this notice pursuant to 5th Cir. ECF Filing Standard E.1. Failure to timely provide
the appropriate number of copies may result in the dismissal of your appeal pursuant to 5
TH CIR. R. 42.3. **You must electronically file a "Form for Appearance of Counsel" within 14 days from this date. You must
name each party you represent, see F
ED R. APP.P. 12(b) and 5TH CIR. 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 Clerk 504-310-7673 cc: Mr. Ralph Joseph Aucoin Sr. Mr. Richard
Arthur Bordelon Mr. Barry Alan Chasnoff Mr. Michael P. Cooley Ms. Deborah Jane Dewart Mr. Stuart Kyle Duncan Mr. William
C. Duncan Mr. Thomas Molnar Fisher
(signature omitted)
(signatureomitted)
50
Mr. Steven W. Fitschen Mr. Steven James Griffin Mr. Robert Smead Hogan Mr. Lawrence John Joseph Mr. Jon Roy Ker Ms. Beth
Ellen Klusmann Mr. Daniel McNeel Lane Jr. Ms. Mary Elizabeth McAlister Mr. Jonathan F. Mitchell Mr. Michael P. Murphy Mr.
Andrew Forest Newman Mr. David Robert Nimocks Mr. Leif A. Olson Mr. Matthew Edwin Pepping Mr. Eric C. Rassbach Mr.
David Robinson Mr. Dean John Sauer Mr. Michael Francis Smith Mr. Kevin Trent Snider Ms. Anita Leigh Staver Mr. Mathew D.
Staver Dr. David Robert Upham Ms. Jessica M. Weisel Mr. Robert Paul Wilson Mr. Russell Henry Withers Ms. Cecilia M. Wood
END QUOTE
55
60
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251078014/Robert-Oscar-Lopez-Amicus-Brief
QUOTE
Robert Oscar Lopez Amicus Brief
14-14061/14066 Amicus Brief of Robert Oscar Lopez in support of Defendants-Appellants
p14
29-5-2015
15
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
14-14061/14066 Amicus Brief of Robert Oscar Lopez in support of Defendants-Appellants

More info:
Published by: Equality Case Files on Dec 27, 2014
Availability:
See more
See less
Nos. 14-14061-AA & 14-14066-AA _________________________________________ IN THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________ JAMES BRENNER, CHARLES JONES, STEVEN
SCHLAIRET, et al., APPELLEES, v. JOHN H. ARMSTRONG, CRAIG J. NICHOLS, AND HAROLD BAZZELL, IN
THEIR RESPECTIVE
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS: SECY
, FLA.
DEPT OF HEALTH
; SECY
,
FLA. DEPT OF MGMT. SERVS.; AND
CLERK OF CT. AND COMPTROLLER FOR WASHINGTON CNTY. FLA., APPELLANTS.
____________________________________________ SLOAN GRIMSLEY, JOYCE ALBU, BOB COLLIER, et al.,
APPELLEES, v. JOHN H. ARMSTRONG AND CRAIG J. NICHOLS, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
AS:
SECY
,
FLA. DEPT OF HEALTH; AND SECY
,
FLA. DEPT OF
MGMT. SERVS., APPELLANTS. ____________________________________________ ON APPEALS FROM
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, CIVIL CASES
NOS. 4:14-CV-00107-RH-CAS & 4:14-CV-138-RH-CAS (HONORABLE ROBERT J. HINKLE)
___________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ SUPPORTING APPELLANTS AND
REVERSAL
___________________________________________ David Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815
(734) 904-6132 dbo@boyleslaw.org Counsel for Amicus Curiae Robert Oscar Lopez
(52 of 118)
Appeal Nos. 14-14061-AA, 14-14066-AA Brenner v. Secy, Fla. Dept of Health, Grimsley v. Secy Dept of
Health
45
50
55
60
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Amicus Curiae Robert Oscar Lopez, pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1, certifies that the following is a list of
those who have an interest in the outcome of this case and/or appeal: 16 Scholars of Federalism and Judicial
Restraint Alvare, Helen M. American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc., The American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation, Inc. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc. American College of
Pediatricians Albu, Joyce Alliance Defending Freedom Anderson, Ryan T. Andrade, Carlos Armstrong, Dr.
John H. Ausley McMullen C-1 of 7
(53 of 118)
Health
Babione, Byron J. Bazzell, Harold Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright &
Wilkinson Bondi, Pamela Jo, Attorney General of Florida Boyle, David Bradley, Gerard V. Brenner, James
Domer Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Citro, Anthony Collier, Bob Concerned Women for America
Cooper, Leslie Crampton, Stephen M. Del Hierro, Juan DeMaggio, Bryan E. Dewart, Deborah J. C-2 of 7
p15
29-5-2015
16
(54 of 118)
Appeal Nos. 14-14061-AA, 14-14066-AA Brenner v. Secy, Fla. Dept of Health

,
Gr
imsley v. Secy Dept of Health
15
Duncan, William C. Emmanuel, Stephen C. Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist
Convention Fitschen, Steven W. Fitzgerald, John Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc. Florida
Family Action, Inc. Gantt, Thomas, Jr. George, Robert P. Gibbs, David C. III Girgis, Sherif Goldberg, Arlene
Goldwasser, Carol (deceased) Goldberg , Suzanne B. Goodman, James J., Jr. Graessle, Jonathan W.
Grimsley, Sloan Hankin, Eric C-3 of 7
(55 of 118)
20
Appeal Nos. 14-14061-AA, 14-14066-AA Brenner v. Secy, Fla. Dept of Health

,
Gr
10
25
30
35
40
Hinkle, Hon. Robert L. Hueso, Denise Humlie, Sarah Hunziker, Chuck Jacobson, Samuel Jeff Goodman, PA
Jones, Charles Dean Kachergus, Matthew R. Kayanan, Maria Liberty Counsel, Inc. Liberty Counsel Action,
Inc. Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation Lopez, Robert Oscar Loupo, Robert Loukonen, Rachael Spring
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Marriage Law Foundation C-4 of 7
(56 of 118)
Appeal Nos. 14-14061-AA, 14-14066-AA
Brenner v. Secy, Fla. Dept of Health
,
Gr
McAlister, Mary McHugh, Dr. Paul Mihet, Horatio G. Milstein, Richard Myers, Lindsay National
Association of Evangelicals Newson, Sandra Nichols, Craig J. North Carolina Values Coalition Picarello,
Anthony Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Rosenthal, Stephen F. Russ, Ozzie Sauer, D. John Save Foundation, Inc.
Schaerr, Gene C. Schlairet, Stephen C-5 of 7
(57 of 118)
Health
45
50
Scholars of the Institution of Marriage Scott, Rick Sevier, Chris Sheppard, White, Kachergus and DeMaggio,
P.A. Sheppard, William J. Smith, Michael F. Smith, Hannah Snider, Kevin T. Stampelos, Hon. Charles A.
Staver, Anita L. Staver, Mathew D. Stevenson, Benjamin James Tanenbaum, Adam S. Tilley, Daniel B.
Trent, Edward Ulvert, Christian United States Conference of Catholic Bishops C-6 of 7
(58 of 118)
Appeal Nos. 14-14061-AA, 14-14066-AA Brenner v. Secy, Fla. Dept of Health, Gr imsley v. Secy Dept
of Health
55
White, Elizabeth L. Winsor, Allen C. This amicus does not know all the people above, or their positions, but
is partially drawing on the interested-persons lists of others, and also adding in, e.g., new amici he did not
see on others lists. If anyone is missing from the list, or anyone is there but should not be, please feel free to
let this amicus know.
60
This amicus is an individual who issues no stock, and who has or is no parent corporation, or any publicly
held corporation that owns 10% or more of stock of that nonexistent parent corporation. C-7 of 7
p16
29-5-2015
17
(59 of 118)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
.C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
...i TABLE OF CITATIONS
..
...
.ii STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

.
..........1
ARGUMENT. ...1
I. My Experience Growing Up...............................................................................2
II. The Impossibility of Finding a Clean Sampling of Kids Raised by Same
- Sex Couples
...8
III. Annotated Bibliography
.15
A. ADULTS...
15 B. KIDS
.20
C. CHILD ABUSE BY GAY PARENTS WHO WERE NOT INITIALLY INVESTIGATED THOROUGHLY, SINCE
AUTHORITIES FEARED
APPEARING BIGOTED AGAINST GAYS...22
IV. The Rhetorical Climate for Critics of Same-Sex Parenting
...24
CONC
LUSION...
29
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
..31
(60 of 118)
ii
TABLE OF CITATIONS CASES
Brenner v.
Secy, Fla. Dept of Health
, No. 14-14061-AA (4:14-CV-00107-RH- CAS, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014))
...1
Grimsley v.
Secy, Fla. Dept of Health
, No. 14-14066-AA (4:14-CV-138-RH- CAS, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014))
...1
CONSTITUTION
U.S. Const. as a whole
p17
29-5-2015
18
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
...1
RULES
Fed. R. App. P. 29
...1 n.1
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Askme,
Youre only against gay marriage because of your religion. Part 3 Gender Identity
, asktheBigot, Aug. 20, 2012, http://askthebigot.com/2012/08/20/gender-identity/
................................................................................................................16 Askme,
Youre only against gay marriage because of your religion. Part 4
- Biology Matters, asktheBigot, Aug. 20, 2012, http://askthebigot.com/2012/08/20/ biology-matters/
...17
(61 of 118)
iii Jeremy Deck, My Fathers Closet , Boundless Webzine (courtesy of Internet Archive Wayback Machine),
undated but apparently from c. 2000, http://web.
archive.org/web/20120109091049/http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000417.html
.
19 Donor Conceived,
Child of lesbian parents, AnonymousUs.org, July 17, 2013,
http://anonymousus.org/stories/story.php?sid=1554#.UpmL7FCUQ4y............21-22 Maggie Gallagher,
Adult Children Speak Out About Same Sex Parents, Cath. Exch., 2004 (and copyright 2014),
http://catholicexchange.com/adult-children-speak-out-about-same-sexparents.....................................................................18-19
The Hum. Rts. Campaign,
The Regnerus Fallout
Who Was Involved

(2013), http://www.regnerusfallout.org/who-was-involved...........................................25-26 * Robert Oscar
Lopez,
Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Childrens View
, Public Discourse, The Witherspoon Inst., Aug. 6th, 2012, http://www.
thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/
...
8, 17-18, 24 R.O. Lpez,
La Joie de Vivre 1:3 -- The Manifesto of Manuel Half, son of a gay father and surrogate mother, Nov. 16,
2013, 9:56 p.m., http://englishmanif. blogspot.com/2013/11/la-joie-de-vivre-13-manifesto-ofmanuel.html.
20-21
(62 of 118)
45
50
55
60
iv R.O. Lpez,
La Joie de Vivre 2:10 -- Kids of Gay Couples Speak Out, Part 2 of 4-- RIVKA EDELMAN, BOBBY LOPEZ,
DAWN STEFANOWICZ , Mar. 24, 2014, 7:49 p.m., http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2014/03/la-joie-devivre-210-kids-of gay.html..................................................................................................................17 R.O.
Lpez,
Le Figaro runs confessional of man raised by lesbians, who opposes gay marriage now, English Manif, Jan.
11, 2013, 8:58 a.m., http://englishmanif. blogspot.com/2013/01/le-figaro-runs-confessional-of-man.html
..15-16 Loren Marks, Same- sex parenting and childrens outcomes: A closer examination of the
American Psychological Associations brief on gay and lesbian parenting, 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 4, July 2012, at
753-751..14 Jennifer Wolff Perrine, Many couples struggle with infertility
in silence, Womens Health on NBC News, updated Aug. 5, 2010, 9:47 PM,
www.nbcnews.com/id/38311820/ns/health-womens_health/t/many-couples-struggle-infertilitysilence/#.U3Ofl21dBzw.........................................................11 Steve Robson, Andy Cannon, 23, was sexually
abused by his gay adoptive parents, Daily Mail (United Kingdom), Mar. 28, 2013, updated 6:39 p.m.,
http://www. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300779/My-adoptive-dad-abused-years-social-workers-ignoredcomplaints-hes-gay.html#ixzz2Rcaydhzw.23-24
p18
29-5-2015
19
(63 of 118)
10
v Denise Shick, Denises Story

, 2011, courtesy of Internet Archive Wayback Machine,
http://web.archive.org/web/20120404123248/http://www.help4families. com/crisis.htm
....19
-20 Paul Sims,
Gay couple left free to abuse boys - because social workers feared being branded homophobic
,
Daily Mail (United Kingdom), Sept. 5, 2007, updated 9:53 p.m.,
15
20
25
30
35
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-fearedbranded-homophobic. html#ixzz2
RccQApyQ22
-23
Debbie Smith
,
A Daughters Reflections About A Gay Father
(undated), DawnStefanowicz.org, http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/pdfs/
DebbieSmith
s AUTOBIOGRAPHY.pd
f
........20
Test. by Dawn Stefanowicz, Conn. Gen. Assemb. Judiciary Comm. Pub. Hrg, Mar. 26, 2007, available at
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/docs/R000326DawnTMY.pdf........................................................................................................ 16 Dave Thomas Found. for
Adoption,
INFOGRAPHIC: US CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE WAITING TO GET ADOPTED
(citation omitted), Aug. 9, 2013,
https://www.davethomasfoundation.org/ news_story/infographic-u-s-children-in-foster-care-waiting-to-getadopted/
..11
40
(64 of 118)
1
45
55
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the national Constitution requires Florida to allow same-sex marriage.
I, Robert Oscar Lopez, 1 write this Brief Supporting Appellants and Reversal, to ask that the Court respect
Floridas upholding the original definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. My interest in
these cases, Brenner
and Grimsley, stems from my experience as a child raised by a lesbian with the help of her female partner for
seventeen years, and from my experience as an outspoken university professor who challenged the socialscience consensus that supposedly
proved there were no disadvantages to being raised by gay or lesbian parents.
60
ARGUMENT
My personal life story is not the main source for my position before the Court. My position against same-sex
marriage stems more from my experience as a scholar and archivist compiling the testimonials of people
raised by same-sex couples (I affix here a collection of such), and my observations of how academic
50
p19
29-5-2015
20
researchers have collaborated with gay activist organizations like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign to commit
1
see Fed. R. App. P. 29. All parties have sent permission to Amicus to write this brief.
(65 of 118)
10
2
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
character assassinations against such children who come forward with negative feedback.
American courts must change course and refocus debate on childrens rights, rather than on
eclectically defined outcomes that cannot capture the deep human significance of having a mother
and father. In the present climate of suppressed expression it is unwise to place children under the
power of same-sex couples since there are many parties in society devoted to erasing or hiding things
that go wrong in their homes. Moreover, such harsh conditions mean that research into this area has to
be thrown out we cannot respect a social-science consensus based on an academic system that
openly punishes people who truthfully challenge it. The failure of the academic establishment to foster
free speech and honesty in this area is twofold: Not only have they allowed many people raised by
same-sex couples to be persecuted by the organizations that claim to fight for them; also, they have
destroyed the academic system on which we would have relied for guidance in determining whether
children have a right to a mother and father.
I. My Experience Growing Up
I will explain my life history here to clarify where I developed a personal interest in same-sex parenting.
(66 of 118)
3
My mother was a Puerto Rican psychiatrist and my father was a Filipino psychiatrist. Their marriage was
falling apart by 1971, when I was born. By my earliest memories, my father did not live in our home and had
minimal contact with me. We did not practice regular shared custody. By the time I was two years old, my
mother was in a stable, supportive, healthy lifelong relationship with another woman, whom I saw quite
regularly and viewed as a third parental figure. Because my father was absent and my mother was not as
emotionally interested in me as her partner was, I developed a stronger emotional attachment to her lesbian
lover than I did to my own mother. My mother and her partner were tactful and sensitive about assuring that
their relationship did not cause me undue stress. They maintained separate houses in town until I was a
teenager and only moved in together when I was finishing high school. They did share camping space in a
recreational vehicle park about forty minutes away from our town, however, and we spent all our weekends
together as a family. While my older siblings did not bond emotionally with my mothers partner, I did, and to
me, for all intents and purposes, this was the family I grew up with. Had I been formally studied by same-sex
parenting experts in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life. During
my childhood and adolescence I presented the outward signs of a successful
(67 of 118)
4
50
55
60
upbringing. Inducted into the National Honor Society, I was president of the French and Spanish clubs,
editor-in-chief of the high school newspaper for two straight years, and graduated one year early from high
school, ranking ninth out of hundreds of graduating seniors. I attended four proms; in fact I do not know of
any other classmate in my Williamsville community that attended that many. I was accepted by Yale
University and arrived there in 1988 as an emancipated seventeen-year-old. Today I am a tenured university
professor, a published author, and going on fourteen years in my lifes only marriage -- to the same woman
who gave birth to my two children, a daughter, and recently, a newborn son.
Behind these faades of a happy outcome lay many problems.
Even in the conditions of my home, which represent in many ways the best possible conditions for a child
raised by a same-sex couple, I experienced a great deal of sexual confusion. I had an inexplicable compulsion
to have sex with older males, which manifested in 1984, when I had my first sexual encounter with two older
p20
29-5-2015
21
teenage boys in my bedroom. One of the boys ended up having to go to the hospital for alcohol poisoning
after my mother discovered us naked and entangled. I was exposed to gay culture from an early age because
my mother and her lover had a number of lesbian friends. My mother was a devotee of Catholic liberation
theology and placed me in contact with priests and nuns who had radical
(68 of 118)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
ideas about sexuality and gender, sometimes referring to God as She and
speaking in frank terms about the beauty of homosexual relationships. In her work as a psychiatrist my
mother also wanted to help poor lesbians and often blurred the boundaries between personal and professional
work, sometimes offering our home as a safe refuge for mentally ill lesbians. By 1985 and 1986, I had
moved past teenagers and wanted to have sex with older men who were my fathers age, though at the
time I could scarcely understand what I was doing. There was a bookstore in our neighborhood that had a
pornography section where I went regularly to find older men. I believe it was around 1987 that I first had a
man offer me payment in exchange for having sex in the back of his van. My first time being paid for sex
brought me a mix of shame and further compulsion. I became a habitual sex worker by the age of sixteen in
various cruising spots where older men told me I could find other customers; these included public parks, the
bathrooms in 24-hour supermarkets, community sports centers, and certain spaces in Lockwood Library of
the State University of New York at Buffalo, where I had sex with graduate students, janitors, and professors
well over twice my age. The money I received for sex certainly helped me financially because it allowed me
certain spending money beyond what I earned with my teenage jobs at a pizzeria and in my mothers clinic.
But the money was not as impactful as the fact
(69 of 118)
6
that I needed to feel loved and wanted by an older male figure, even if for only as short as a half hour. I did
not have psychological problems or drug problems, but the sexual problems of my adolescence became
compounded after my mother died in 1990. Her inheritance was stuck in New York States surrogate courts.
She had appointed her female lover the executor of the estate and then signed a codicil about ten years later,
appointing my father as executive of the estate. In the ensuing conflicts, my mothers lover had to move out
of the house she had shared with my mother. I also
ended up homeless. In 1992 I was able to return to Yale for my final year. I completed my degree in Political
Science with a B+ average and found consistent full-time work between 1993 and 1998. In 1998, I found out
I had cancer and had to be rushed into surgery at Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx. The tumor was severe,
according to the doctor, and had to be removed right away. At that instant, I called my father rather than my
mothers lover. After twenty
-seven years of estrangement and absence, we rebuilt our relationship. He took care of me after the surgery
and liberated me, in a sense, from the gay family that had been positive but also toxic. Being able to say,
you are my father to him meant the world to me. I moved in with him while
(70 of 118)
45
7
50
55
60
I underwent extended treatment at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, and we were able to re-create my
childhood between 1998 and 2000; in 2000 I moved in with my girlfriend who would later become my wife.
(She still is today.) As early as ten years ago, I developed a clear stance on homosexual relationships. A civil
union or some kind of state recognition would have helped my mother and her partner. Yet the traditional
marriage laws in New York State as they existed back then prevented my mother and her partner from
entirely cutting my father out of my life. The latter reality proved pivotal because my re-establishment of ties
to my father in 1998 led to a transition in my life, from being lost and sexually confused to being stable and
romantically fulfilled. For that reason I can support same-sex civil unions and some kinds of foster care for
gay couples, but I object strenuously to marriage and adoption for gay couples. Both marriage and adoption
involve using the force of the state to force unwilling children into emotional relationships with people who
are not their parents and this coercion is permanent, hurtful, and discriminatory, insofar as all children have
a mother and father but children placed in same-sex-couple homes are stripped of one of these two figures
without their consent. Every stated goal of the gay marriage movement to honor relationships, to respect
p21
29-5-2015
22
how people are born (i.e., born gay), and to refrain from telling people whom they should love leads me
to oppose gay marriage. We must honor the universal relationship between
(71 of 118)
5
8
10
15
20
children and their father and mother. We must respect the fact that children are born that way with a mother
and
father, always. Lastly, we must not tell children that they have to love adults who are not their parents simply
because these gay adults say they love them and want to have custodial powers over them.
II. The Impossibility of Finding a Clean Sampling of Kids Raised by Same-Sex Couples
In 2012, I went from privately holding these beliefs to publicly speaking out. My mother had died 22 years
earlier and my honorable discharge from the U.S. Army Reserves on July 15, 2012, gave me the freedom to
speak openly on sensitive matters without risking reprimands. The first step was publishing Growing Up with
Two Moms in Public Discourse.
Unfortunately at that time, most discussion of gay parenting focused on the controversial study conducted by
Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin. It is my understanding that the rejection of his
scholarship played a significant role in some lower courts decisions to overturn various States marriage laws.
I was not involved in Mark Regneruss study and I do have serious objections to his confusing bisexual with
gay and lesbian life histories. This is significant since both my mother and I lived bisexual lives. Nonetheless,
I can speak to a few points about Mark Regnerus as a person and what I witnessed as a
(72 of 118)
25
9
30
35
40
45
friend of his during 2012 and 2013.

Despite the flaws in Mark Regneruss research model, he and Walter Schumm are the only scholars studying
alternative family structures, who have ever agreed to speak with me. This holds true even though I know that
many other researchers must know of my existence. I am on quite prominent blacklists published by the two
most powerful gay rights organizations in the United States
Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation, and Human Rights Campaign. Though I have a doctorate,
went to Yale, have tenure, and have compiled dozens of life histories involving same-sex parenting, I have
been dismissed, quite often rudely, by researchers who keep claiming to know a great deal about the impact
of same-sex parenting on children. Mark Regnerus has been attacked not for what he failed to find, but rather,
for what he included. He found a large number of people of color who were involved in same-sex parenting
homes, as well as people who lived real-life complexities that other researches peremptorily suppressed
(more than two parental figures, living in separate houses, gay parents breaking up, etc.) In other words,
unlike every other researcher in this field, Mark Regnerus seeks to understand every person he comes across
who had a gay or bisexual parent. All the others go looking for families that suit a prescribed profile they
must be a stable, picture-perfect gay couple that doesnt have any of the complicating factors that
actually happen in real life. Hence the rejection of Mark Regneruss work is not a
(73 of 118)
10
50
55
60
defense of gay families; it is a slap in the face of the vast majority of us who come from gay families and
cannot seem to be heard by researchers who expect us to fit a narrow and suffocating mold. Having said all
that, Mark Regneru
ss study ends up falling prey to what ruined all the other research into children of gay parents. The question
being asked was always whether children of gay parents made a good impression on adults do they have
good grades, are they well-liked by peers, do they seem confident and well adjusted? All of these
measurements reflect what adults want out of children. None of these measurements can possibly capture the
grave injustice being done to a child whose father or mother has been permanently taken away. A child can
go to Harvard and still have lost something very precious, which adults did not have the right to take away.
Grades, incomes, and well-adjusted appearances are superficial and unimportant when it comes to human
dignity. The question is not whether a child needs a mother and father, as if adults with agendas can ever be
sensible about defining how much a child ought to have. Every child
p22
29-5-2015
23
has a mother and father, even if one of these was someone who abandoned the child, died, was a mere sperm
donor, or gestated the child for pay. For the child of a same-sex couple, this individual is not a number or a
hypothetical this is a real person with a face, a name, a history, an origin story,
(74 of 118)
11
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
and a cultural meaning. In my case, the missing father was an entirely different race. I found myself, in
college, longing so badly to know about the Philippines that I helped to found the Filipino Intercollegiate
Network for Dialogue. For other children of same-sex couples, the longing and yearning for the lost parent
of the opposite sex takes other forms, because their situation is different. Some of them are adoptees who,
like so many other adoptees, feel an inexplicable need to find their original parents, often with a mix of anger
and longing. For adoptees placed in same-sex couple homes, the long-recognized challenges felt by adoptees
are compounded by the gender imbalance of the adoptive home. It is not necessary, given the long waiting
lists of heterosexual couples who wish to adopt, ever to place a child in the adoptive home of two same-sex
individuals. According to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, there were 101,719 foster children in
the United States eligible for adoption, as of August 9, 2013. ( See map at INFOGRAPHIC: US CHILDREN IN
FOSTER CARE WAITING TO GET ADOPTED
(citation omitted), Aug. 9, 2013, https://www. davethomasfoundation.org/news_story/infographic-u-schildren-in-foster-care-waiting-to-get-adopted/.)
(75 of 118)
12
Yet in 2010, NBC News reported that 1.1 million American women sought fertility treatment in any given
year, so there is clearly an inexhaustible number of heterosexual homes that could be recruited as adoptive
homes for these children. (
See Jennifer Wolff Perrines article, Many couples struggle with infertility in silence, Womens Health on
NBC News, updated Aug. 5, 2010, 9:47:19 a.m., www.nbcnews.com/id/38311820/ns/healthwomens_health/t/many-couples-struggle-infertility-silence/#.U3Ofl21dBzw.) Given that placement in samesex couple homes is not necessary, it is unjust to force a child who has been entrusted to the state to live
without a mother or without a father. The moment the adoption becomes legal, then the chance of having a
mother or father is permanently foreclosed, and the adoptee can never reverse this act of deprivation, which is
then added to the initial trauma that caused the loss of his birth family. The child grows up knowing that
everyone else has a mother and father, but he doesnt, because the people who are raising him and say they
love him took one of those away from him, forever. In a case where one member of the samesex couple is the childs biological parent and the couple wants to jointly adopt the child, the adoption is a
form of
coercion. Now the child, in addition to having permanently lost the link to a biological parent of the opposite
sex, must submit to the authority and control of a new parent who may or may not dispense of such power
with generosity. In my
(76 of 118)
13
50
55
60
conversations with over thirty people raised by a biological parent and a non- biologically related gay partner,
I have identified a clear trend: children dont want to be forced into an emotional relationship with the
non-related gay partner. Notwithstanding some fondness that may develop, they adapt to that person and
do their best to respect him or her, so that they can nurture their relationship with their parent. But they
almost never feel comfortable calling this essential step-parent Mom or Dad, and do not like being
ordered around by the step-parent or expected to speak with the same intimacy they show to their original
parent. So the entire notion that gay people must get married so they can adopt each others children is fatally
flawed. This is the state forcing kids into emotional situations they do not want to be in. It isnt freedom or
protection, but rather, coercion.
After compiling the testimonials and stories of people raised by same-sex couples, I reject entirely the socialscience consensus. My main rejection of the social-science consensus comes from the reality that: (1) their
metrics cannot reflect the deeper, unquantifiable pains experienced by children in such homes even if they
look happy on paper; (2) many children of same-sex couples are under pressure to make their parents look
p23
29-5-2015
24
good and internalize this pressure, so they cannot be trusted to provide frank answers, plus we know from
various press accounts of child abuse by same-sex
(77 of 118)
5
14
10
15
20
couples that often children raised in such homes are actively coached to provide answers to outsiders; (3) the
quantifiable negative outcomes on children often do not manifest until they are adults, particularly in their
late twenties and beyond, at which time most of the social-science researchers are no longer willing to
include them in their studies; and (4) the social-science researchers like to exclude the life histories of
children raised by same-sex couples who do not fit rigid particulars, which end up misrepresenting the likely
experience of children who are forced by the state into the care of gay couples. In my case, when I debated
same-sex parenting, people have repeatedly suggested that my case is not applicable in any general sense, due
to the fact that my mother and her partner chose to live in separate houses despite co-parenting me, and the
fact that my mother died when I was still a teenager. Because Mark Regnerus and Doug Allen did include
such complicated cases in their sample, they were pilloried rather than credited for reversing a long-standing
problem with social-science methodology in this area ( see Loren Marks study published in July 2012, Same- sex
parenting and children s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association s
brief on gay and lesbian parenting , 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 4, at 735-751).
(78 of 118)
15
25
30
In my travels working with children from alternative family structures, I find it impossible to come across a
pristine case of a child raised by two same-sex adults without any mitigating factor like a divorce, third-party
reproduction, adoption, or death of a parent; therefore I argue that the subject pools gathered by socialscience researchers are at best rarified and handpicked or at worst the product of basic academic fraud. Below
I attach a partial bibliography of testimonials, stories, and news items about children raised by same-sex
couples, to show the repeated pattern of complexities. (There are many more examples which there is not
room to put here.) These family structures are so complex and specific that it is virtually impossible to reduce
them to statistics, meaning that the social-science consensus is, at this point, utterly worthless.
III. Annotated Bibliography A. ADULTS *1)
35
Jean
Dominique Bunel
40
45
50
(raised by lesbians):
...
You see, two rights collide: the right to a child for gays, and the right of a child to a mother and father.
The international convention on the rights of the child stipulates in effect that the highest interest of
the child should be a primary consideration (article 3, section 1).
Here this higher interest leaves no doubt
I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and
before the European Court of the rights of man,
(79 of 118)
16
55
for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad.
Le Figaro (10/01/13)
p24
29-5-2015
25
10
15
R.O. Lpez, Le Figaro runs confessional of man raised by lesbians, who opposes gay marriage now,
English Manif, Jan. 11, 2013, 8:58 a.m., http://englishmanif. blogspot.com/2013/01/le-figaro-runsconfessional-of-man.html (last visited November 20, 2014, as with all other Internet links herein).
*2) Dawn Stefanowicz (raised by gay father): . . . Though I was deeply disappointed with my father and his
partners sexual behaviors, I couldnt say anything negative about my dad or the homosexual lifestyle. For a
time, I coped by being performance oriented and denying the influences around me, pretending I could rise
above everything. Test. by Dawn Stefanowicz, Conn. Gen. Assemb. Judiciary Comm. Pub. Hrg, Mar. 26,
2007, available at
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/docs/R000326-DawnTMY.pdf.
*3) Katy Faust (raised by lesbians)
: In addition to the distinct and complimentary ways that men and women parent, children need both sexes in
their immediate world as they develop their own gender identity. Its strongly held within the social sciences
that beginning as early as age three, children can (and should) identify with their same-sex parent. Askme,
Youre only against gay marriage because of your religion. Part 3 Gender Identity, asktheBigot, Aug. 20,
2012, http://askthebigot.com/2012/08/20/gender-identity/;
(80 of 118)
17
20
25
30
35
40
Flip this around- not every marriage produces children, but every child had a father and a mother. Our
definition of the family unit should reflect this biological reality and developmental necessity. Askme, Youre
only against gay marriage because of your religion. Part 4- Biology Matters, asktheBigot, Aug. 20, 2012,
http://askthebigot.com/2012/08/20/ biology-matters/.
*4) Rivka Edelman (raised by lesbians
): But I think that what Dawn was saying is that no matter which way you slice it, whether it was the social or
the political or the sexual, it was always about them.
When you sent me the questions, I looked up some stuff. One thing I found was this tiny quote from this woman,
somewhere in New England, some scholar in New England, and she says something to the effect of, gay
parents tend to be more
motivated and committed than heterosexual parents, because they really want those kids. And I thought to
myself, that just shows how this woman supposedly I guess shes heterosexual, I dont know this woman
academic absorbs the gay communitys hatred of women.
And even the lesbians, in a weird way, they hated heterosexual women. R.O. Lpez, La Joie de Vivre 2:10 -Kids of Gay Couples Speak Out, Part 2 of 4-- RIVKA EDELMAN, BOBBY LOPEZ, DAWN STEFANOWICZ
, Mar. 24, 2014, 7:49 p.m., http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2014/03/la-joie-de-vivre-210-kids-of-gay.html.
*5) Robert Oscar Lopez (raised by lesbians): Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult,
and not because of prejudice from neighbors. People in our community didnt really know what was going on
in the house. To most outside
(81 of 118)
18
45
50
55
60
observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight As. Inside, however, I
was confused. . . . Robert Oscar Lopez, Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Childrens View, Public Discourse,
The Witherspoon Inst., Aug. 6th, 2012, http://www. thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/. *6) Bronagh
Cassidy (raised by lesbian mothers): Back in 1976, Cassidys mom had a religious ceremony with a woman
named Pat. To make Cassidy, they did artificial insemination at home, mixing the sperm of two gay friends
to make sure nobody would ever know who the father was, says Cassidy. (That was in the days before
widespread DNA testing.) The two women stayed together for 16 years, until Pat died. Three years later,
Cassidys mother married a man. What was it like for Cassidy being raised by two women she called Mom and My Pat? .
. . When growing up, I always had the feeling of being something unnatural, Cassidy says. I came out of
an unnatural relationship; it was something like I shouldnt be there. On a daily basis, it was something I was
conflicted with. I used to wish, honestly that Pat wasnt there. Why does she oppose same-sex marriage?
Its not something that a seal of approval should be stamped on: We shouldnt say it is a great and
wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize theyve
been cheated. The adults choose to have that lifestyle and then have a kid. They are fulfilling their
emotional needs they want to have a child and they are not taking into account how thats
going to feel to the child; theres a clear difference between having same-sex parents and a mom and a
dad.
p25
29-5-2015
26
(82 of 118)
19
Maggie Gallagher, Adult Children Speak Out About Same Sex Parents, Cath. Exch., 2004 (and copyright
2014), ttp://catholicexchange.com/adult-children-speak-out-about-same-sex-parents.
10
15
20
25
*7) Jeremy Deck (raised by gay father)

: It is this side of the story that I feel compelled to tell. Children of homosexuals have a unique vantage point
on the complexities of the issue. Homosexuals are often able to surround themselves with like-minded
individuals in the thriving gay culture. Spouses, parents, or siblings of homosexuals do not usually immerse
themselves in a homosexual environment once their loved ones come out.
Children, however, are in a sense forced to live a lifestyle they have not chosen. . . . Jeremy Deck,
My Fathers Closet, Boundless Webzine (courtesy of Internet Archive Wayback Machine), undated but
apparently from c. 2000, http://web.
archive.org/web/20120109091049/http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000417.html.
*8) Denise Shick (raised by gay father): My dad was a cross dresser when I was a child. This made me feel
very uncomfortable around him growing up. This confused me with his role of a father in my childhood. I
just wanted him to be my dad.
I learned after his passing that he was in a homosexual relationship. This was another dilemma for me to deal
with. Even though he had passed on, it seemed like another chapter of his life was revealed to me. I had
questioned this to myself growing up. I never told anyone about myself questioning if he was gay. Now the
truth was there on pen and paper.
(83 of 118)
20
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
There are many of us going though [sic] this situation. There are many of us out there. Dont think the
Gender Identify Disorder does not exist or hurt people. Denise Shick,
Denises Story, courtesy of Internet Archive Wayback Machine, 2011,
http://web.archive.org/web/20120404123248/http://www.help4families. com/crisis.htm.
*9
) Debbie Smith (raised by gay father)
: How is a young woman supposed to deal with homosexual pornography that
she finds in her fathers closet? Is this something
that one talks about in private conversations? I never talked about it until I got into counseling years later. Or
what does one do when dear
old Dad asks you to type up some things that hes written, and
it turns out to be pornographic in nature? The desire to please and obey parents is overridden by the disgust
felt upon reading this trash. How can your own father think like this? It is difficult not to feel polluted by the
experience and wonder if, somehow, you are not damaged
goods because of the corruption of your fathers mind.
What about the lack of positive feedback regarding females and femininity? As I look back, even when my
brother and I were young, there was little interaction between my father and I. There were few compliments
about the way I dressed or acted in ways that were affirming. Expressions of emotion were rare, unless they
were angry rants about his job, his relationships or other challenges in his life.
Debbie Smith
,
A Daug
hters Reflections About A Gay Father
(undated), DawnStefanowicz.org, http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/pdfs/DebbieSmith's
AUTOBIOGRAPHY.pdf .
B. KIDS *1) Manuel Half (raised by gay father)
:
(84 of 118)
p26
29-5-2015
27
21
10
15
20
25
You stand up for the idea of a father without a mother, which is, without a mother, no father at all, but
something else. And it, that mother, you say, matters for nothing--don't think of her at all: And don't look for her
among people made from fathers and mothers, since you say they suffer with their fathers and mothers. And you say
that I am the example and model that proves your full and healthy wholeness, which you built at the cost of
my my full and healthy wholeness. R.O. Lpez,
La Joie de Vivre 1:3 -- The Manifesto of Manuel Half, son of a gay father and surrogate mother
, Nov. 16, 2013, 9:56 p.m., http://englishmanif. blogspot.com/2013/11/la-joie-de-vivre-13-manifesto-ofmanuel.html.
*2) Anonymous Girl
, Donor Conceived
(raised by lesbians)
: I have gay parents. I spend most of my time at my best friends house. I hang out with her Dad cuz I never
had one and he is this awesome guy. My friends Dad is a lot like Charlie from Twilight! I cried when I read
about Bellas father in the books and in all his scenes in the movies. Mostly
at my friends house it fee
ls like I can just be myself. Someone has to say it cuz I dont hear it but gay parents are selfish in a way. They
dont
think what its going to be like for me to live in their world.
Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I a bad daughter because I wish I had a Dad? Is there anyone
else who has 2 Moms or 2 Dads who wonders what it would be like if they were born into a normal family?
Is ther anyone else who wants to be able to use the word normal without gettin a lecture on what is normal???
I dont know my real father and never will. Its weird but I miss him. I miss this man I will never know. Is it wrong for
me to long for a father like my friends have? She has two brothers I play basketball with all the time. It feels so
amazing to be included in their family. When I am there I think this is what its like to be in a family that has a
(85 of 118)
30
22
35
40
45
50
55
60
Mom and a Dad. Then I have have to go home to my own world. I just dont fit in it anymore. Donor
Conceived,
Child of lesbian parents
, AnonymousUs.org, July 17, 2013, http://anonymousus.org/stories/story.php?sid=1554#.UpmL7FCUQ4y.
C. CHILD ABUSE BY GAY PARENTS WHO WERE NOT INITIALLY INVESTIGATED
THOROUGHLY, SINCE AUTHORITIES FEARED
APPEARING
BIGOTED AGAINST GAYS
*1) Gay Couple Left Free to Abuse Boys Because Social Workers Feared Being Branded Homophobic:
A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social
workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded
yesterday. Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be
officially approved as foster parents. . . . . Even when the mother of two of the children reported her
suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men's explanations and did nothing. . . . . In a scathing report
published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was con
demned for treating the men as trophy carers
.
The children
s charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey
had allowed political correctness to override common sense. The report, following an independent review of
the case, said:
One m
anager described the couple as trophy carers which led to
slac
k arrangements over placement.
(86 of 118)
p27
29-5-2015
28
23
10
15
20
Another said that by virtue

of their sexuality they had a badge
which made things less questionable.
The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of peopl

e not thinking the unthinkable
.
It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.
The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between t

he appropriate and the abusive.
. . . . Wathey, 42, was jailed for five years in June last year after being convicted of four counts of sexual
activity with a child and one offence of causing a child to watch sexual activity. Faunch, 33, received a sixyear jail sentence after he was found guilty of five charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child and two
of taking indecent photographs of a child. Paul Sims,
Gay couple left free to abuse boys - because social workers feared being branded homophobic
,
Daily Mail (United Kingdom), Sept. 5, 2007, updated 9:53 p.m.,
25
30
35
40
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-fearedbranded-homophobic.html#ixzz2RccQApyQ.
*2) My Adoptive Dad Abused Me for Years but Social Workers Ignored My
Complaints Because He
s Gay
: A boy sexually abused by his adoptive father and his gay partner
was labelled an unruly child by social workers who ignored his
complaints for years, a damning report has revealed. . . . . Mr [Andy]
Cannon said: I believe if my adoptive dad wa
s in a heterosexual relationship then my complaints would have been listened to earlier.
It seems the council didnt want to be seen as victimising gay
people
they would rather look politically correct and let them get away with it to avoid any repercussions.
[]
(87 of 118)
45
50
55
60
24
Steve Robson,
Andy Cannon, 23, was sexually abused by his gay adoptive parents
, Daily Mail (United Kingdom), Mar. 28, 2013, updated 6:39 p.m., http://www. dailymail.co.uk/news/article2300779/My-adoptive-dad-abused-years-social-workers-ignored-complaints-hes-gay.html#ixzz2Rcaydhzw.
IV. The Rhetorical Climate for Critics of Same-Sex Parenting
In addition to the testimonials or news items affixed in the list
supra
, there are dozens of other people raised by same-sex couples who have communicated with me, but they do
not want to reveal their names or even have their stories recorded.
The reason for peoples fear of being named can be illustrated by what happened to me since I published
Growing up with two moms in
Public Discourse
in 2012. Scott Rosenzweig
(or Rose)
, a blogger who was then with the
p28
29-5-2015
29
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
New Civil Rights Movement,

sent over ten emails to my university accusing me of
hate speech, bullying, and gay bashing,
usually copying dozens of other people including high officials in the California State University and parties
in the state capital. Rosenzweig placed an open records request to my university and was able to gain access
to many of my work emails that I had never intended to make public. It was only through pressure from my
pro bono lawyer that we were able to prevent the names and personal details of over eighty individuals who
had emailed me about their experiences from being released to Rosenzweig. Rosenzweig is not a minor
player in this conflict
he was the one who filed a complaint with the

(88 of 118)
25
University of Texas at Austin and was able to place Mark Regneruss entire data
set under investigation (which cleared Mark Regnerus in the end). In August 2012, Karen Ocamb, a blogger
at
Frontiers LA,
posted a photograph
of me with a headline saying, perhaps you know this man, then naming my
workplace
it felt to me like an invitation for people to harass or even attack me physically. Jeremy Hooper, Zack Ford,
and Wayne Besen are all powerful gay bloggers with a high national profile, who have followed my blogs
and social
media and written articles accusing me of being anti
gay.
Jeremy Hooper often writes to people to say that I compared gay parents to slave-owners, which is a gross
oversimplification of work I did applying my scholarly expertise in early African American literature to the
history of family formation. Now people who Google me pull up links to countless postings that define me as
anti-gay. The Human Rights Campaign lists me
on the Regnerus Fallout p
age
The Regnerus Fallout
Who Was Involved

(2013), http://www.regnerusfallout.org/ who-was-involved, detailing the ostensible misdeeds of people who
collaborated with Mark Regnerus to demean same-sex parents. Though I had no involvement in the study
except that I published one essay that contained eight paragraphs
addressing Darren Sherkats dismissal of Mark Regneruss findings, I am listed under HRCs compilation of
Who was involved in the Regnerus study, and my
picture is affixed there along with the repeated claim that I compared gay parents
(89 of 118)
26
50
55
60
to slave-owners. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation placed me on their Commentator
Accountability Project list. When this list was published, Rosenzweig sent an alarmist email to my university
president and a host of other school officials, saying that I was insane and students should not be willing to
study with me. When I was invited to speak at the College of Holy Cross, I was later told by the students who
wanted to bring me there that administrators would not approve my visit. Students at Stanford invited me to
speak at a conference and were quickly barraged with alarming emails from GLAAD, again claiming that I
compared gay parents to slave-owners, and saying that I was anti-gay and intimating that inviting me to
campus was akin to bigotry.
Due to this smear campaign, Stanfords
undergraduate and graduate student bodies denied funding to the student group that invited me. At the
department level, I had to be reviewed for tenure by a committee member who is openly gay and who
p29
29-5-2015
30
received all the accusatory emails from Scott Rosenzweig. During the tenure review I was repeatedly
pressured to explain my
politics and told that my personal revelations posed a problem for my teaching.
This went into the record even though the department did vote to give me tenure.
(90 of 118)
27
10
15
20
25
The references to personal revelations appeared again in letters at higher

levels of review so these have become part of my personnel file. Children raised by same-sex couples face a
gauntlet if they break the silence
about the no disadvantages consensus.
In such a climate, I must conclude that placing children in samesex couples homes is dangerous, because they have no
space or latitude to express negative feelings about losing a mom or dad, and in fact they have much to fear if
they do. It is clear to me that almost nobody will be willing to report abuses in such homes or even listen to
the children who are receiving the abuse. I must also conclude that the same-sex parenting consensus is not a
consensus at all. We cannot in good faith accept the findings of sociologists who undertook work in a climate
marked by repression and persecution of children raised by same-sex couples who have information running
contrary to the desired conclusion that same-sex parenting is safe and uniformly positive. The same-sex
parenting positions put forward by politically compromised groups such as the American Psychiatric
Association and the American Sociological Association are misleading and should be thrown out. We have
ample reasons based on humanitarian grounds to respect the relationship of a child to his mother and father,
especially in the context of a debate in which gay activists are
(91 of 118)
28
30
35
40
asking for people to respect their sexual relationship to each other. It is not necessary to do additional
research to find that something precious and important has been taken from a child who is forced to live
without a mother or father, and the state has no business encouraging such a taking. For these reasons, please
abide by the Florida marriage laws.
CONCLUSION
This amicus respectfully asks the Court to reverse the judgment of the court below. November 21, 2014
Respectfully submitted, s/David Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815 (734) 904-6132
dbo@boyleslaw.org Counsel for Amicus Curiae Robert Oscar Lopez
(92 of 118)
29
45
50
55
60
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on November 21,
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: WILLIAM J. SHEPPARD ELIZABETH L. WHITE BRYAN E. DEMAGGIO
SHEPPARD, WHITE & KACHERGUS, P.A.
215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 sheplaw@att.net
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees in Case No. 14-14061
SAMUEL S. JACOBSON
BLEDSOE, JACOBSON, SCHMIDT, WRIGHT et al.
1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1818 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 sam@jacobsonwright.com
MARIA KAYANAN DANIEL B. TILLEY
ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC.
4500 Biscayne Blvd Ste 340 Miami, Florida 33137-3227 mkayanan@aclufl.org dtilley@aclufl.org
STEPHEN F. ROSENTHAL
p30
29-5-2015
31
(93 of 118)
10
15
20
30
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33130 srosenthal@podhurst.com
Allen C. Winsor Adam Scott Tanenbaum
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 allen.winsor@myfloridalegal.com
adam.tanenbaum@myfloridalegal.com
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants in Cases Nos. 14-14061 and 14-14066
James J. Goodman, Jr.
JEFF GOODMAN, PA
946 Main St. Chipley, FL 32428 office@jeffgoodmanlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant in Case No. 14-14061
November 21, 2014 Respectfully submitted, s/David Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815 (734)
904-6132 dbo@boyleslaw.org Counsel for Amicus Curiae Robert Oscar Lopez
(94 of 118)
25
31
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because:
X
this brief contains 6788 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or
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
program] with [state number of characters per inch and name of type style]. s/David Boyle Attorney for
Amicus Curiae Robert Oscar Lopez Dated: November 21, 2014 Thank you for your time.
(95 of 118)
END QUOTE
https://www.scribd.com/doc/240312274/Katy-Faust-Amicus-Briefs
QUOTE
Katy Faust Amicus Briefs
Case 14-50196 - Amicus Brief of Katy Faust in support of Defendants [Document: 00512728659]
Case 14-50196 - Amicus Brief of Katy Faust in support of Defendants [Document: 00512728659]
More info:
Availability:
p31
29-5-2015
32
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60

See more
See less
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-982 ___________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE KATY FAUST SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND
SUPPORTING REVERSAL
___________________________________________
Curiae B.N. Klein
i
APPELLANTS:
APPELLEES:
ii (
APPELLEES ATTORNEYS:
amici in the case, especially since they are not pa
rties 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
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.i
...
..v ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1
p32
29-5-2015
33
10
15
A. GOVERNMENTS INTEREST IN MARRIA

GE...............................................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
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
iv VIII.
Marriage should just be about adult emotional bonds
...........................19 (ANTECONCLUSI
ON)......1
9 CONCLUSION
.
......
2
2
3
FORM 6. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)..2
4
v
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. 104
199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7 and 28 U.S.C. 1738C,
overruled in part
by
, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)..................................................................5 &n.2 Frank Ligtvoet,
The Misnomer of Motherless Parenting
, N.Y. Times, June 22nd, 2013,
available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-misnomer-of-motherlessparenting.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
p33
29-5-2015
34
10
15
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

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/obamachicago-fatherhood-economy-gun-control/ 1925727/...................................22 & n.5
1
20
25
30
35
40
45

The present amicus curiae, Katy Faust,
1
is 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 parents
divorce. 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.
1
see
Fed. R. App. P. 29. All parties have filed blanket permission with the Court for amicae/i to write briefs.
2
50
55
60
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
p34
29-5-2015
35
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.
5
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.
10
A. GOVERNMENTS INTEREST IN MARRIAGE
15
20
25
30
35
40
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 marri
age is not an adult-centric one
after all. Governments interest
in marriage is children. When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
2
in 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.
2
Def. of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. 104
199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7 and 28 U.S.C. 1738C,
overruled in part
by
, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
5
45
50
55
60
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 lo
st 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 selfevident, as our founding fathers would say. When you look at a newborn
p35
29-5-2015
36
if there is no hospital chart or adults cooing over her, cards from friends and family, a birth certificate in your
hand - what do
5
6
10
15
20
you know about that child? What is absolutely undeniable just from that babys
existence? By counting her fingers and toes you cannot know her housing situation, the number of siblings
she has, her living conditions, what school she is zoned for, or her access to food and water. What you know
as you gaze at that wondrous and precious child is that she IS. What did that require? It required that nine
months earlier a man and a woman came together to provide the ingredients for her exist
ence. That is all. Until the world starts to tell Baby Girls story for her
thorough whatever cultural or religious context she has been born into, there are two things that are true about
that child. Two things entitled to her because, just because, she is crying and squirming and breathing and
yawning. Two rights that every child, EVERY child, shares when they arrive in this world. First, the right to
live. Second, the right to have a relationship with his/her father and mother. The law upholds the natural right
of parents to have a direct, custodial relationship with their offspring, provided they do not neglect or abuse
them. In
fact, even a parent who does not wish to be involved in his/her childs life is
required to help support that child financially. Assistance programs and social service agencies - largely
government-funded - go to great lengths to keep families of origin together, even in less-thanCase: 14-50196 Document: 00512728659 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/11/2014
25
7
30
35
40
45
ideal circumstances. Presumably, one could argue that some (even many) of these children w
ould 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 child
ren. 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.
10
50
55
60
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 sperm donor, 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 sperm donor again, and they produced a daughter, Lucy. A
good friend of mine from college had gone through a divorce and said that she really longed 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
an IVF 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
p36
29-5-2015
37
10
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
4
http://m.npr.org/news/Books/163468489.
15
13
20
RESPONSES TO COMMON OBJECTIONS
I.
25
30
35
40
45
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
14
50
55
60
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 another
Parent 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 parents
p37
29-5-2015
38
10
divorce, 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 Trap
in 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
15
15
20
25
30
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 gaymarriage 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
16
35
show no ill effects? These are quite obviously mutually exclusive outcomes. IV.
40
45
50
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
55
17
60
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
p38
29-5-2015
39
10
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 grandparentheaded 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.
18
15
VI.
20
25
30
35
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.
19
VIII.
40
45
50
55
60
Marriage should just be about adult emotional bonds. If marriage is

for adults, then what institution is for children? Maybe your answer is
public education. The problem is that a student who isnt having their
emotional needs met at home is more likely to flounder in school, as any teacher will attest. But if you get the
family right, then you get a higher likelihood of academic health thrown in with the deal. In fact,
a married intact home is the single greatest weapon that society has
in the fight to lower incarceration rates, to reduce the number of children living in poverty, curtail child
trafficking, promote mental and physical child wellness, and so on. * * *
If societys interest in marriage is children, then why are we promoting a
family structure where a child would have to be denied a relationship with their mother or father so the adults
ca
n have the family they desire? Why, if some believe that they are born gay, do many in the gay lobby
seek to legally sever the
much more selfevident truth that children are born to both a mother and
father? Why, if one popular gay-marriage mantra is that they do not want the government
to tell them who to love, would they tell children that being loved by one of their
natural parents is unnecessary?
20
p39
29-5-2015
40
10
15
20
25
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 child
s
rights and child
rens
flourishing. 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
there
s no more important ing
redient 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.
5
But because he has now
evolved on the subject of gay
5
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/17/obama-chicago-fatherhood-economy-guncontrol/1925727/.
30
21
35
40
45
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 belie
ve 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
marri
age 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 Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach,
CA 90815 (734) 904-6132 dbo@boyleslaw.org Counsel for Amicus Curiae Katy Faust
50
22
55
60
registered CM/ECF users: Jonathan F. Mitchell Kyle D. Highful Beth Klusmann Michael P. Murphy OFFICE 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 Plaza San Antonio, TX 78205 Jessica M. Weisel AKIN GUMP
p40
29-5-2015
41
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 2029 Century Park, E., Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-0000 Michael P.
Cooley Andrew Forest Newman AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
5
23
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75204 August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted, s/David Boyle
Katy Faust
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
24
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
X
45
25
50
Attorney for Amicus Curiae Katy Faust Dated: August 4, 2014 Thank you for your time.
(image not reproduced)
55
60
p41
29-5-2015
42
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
https://www.scribd.com/doc/240313523/Dawn-Stefanowicz-Amicus-Brief
QUOTE
Dawn Stefanowicz Amicus Brief
Case 14-50196 - Amicus Brief of Dawn Stefanowicz in support of Defendants [Document: 00512728662]
Case 14-50196 - Amicus Brief of Dawn Stefanowicz in support of Defendants [Document: 00512728662]
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-982 ___________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DAWN STEFANOWICZ SUPPORTING DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS AND SUPPORTING REVERSAL
___________________________________________
Curiae B.N. Klein
i
APPELLANTS:
APPELLEES:
ii (
APPELLEES ATTORNEYS:
amici in the case, especially since they are
p42
29-5-2015
43
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
not parties or parties attorneys, and the list of amici is growing. However, if
wished, a list can be supplied. Amicus Curiae Dawn Stefanowicz 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 Dawn Stefanowicz
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.i
...
.iv
ARGUMENT.........2
I. Growing Up In A Gay H
ousehold....
......2 II. Daughters of Ga
y Fathers..
.10
III. Instability of Gay Households
...11
IV. Silencing Our Voices.......
......15
V. Political Correctness & Science....
..21 VI. Same-sex Parent
ing Studies.
.
22 CONC
LUSION.......2
31
FORM 6. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)..
32
iv
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
Kathy Belge,
Top 10 LGBT Scholarships - Top College Scholarships for LGBT Students
(About.com), http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/youth/tp/Scholarships.htm.........................17 & n.12 BILL C-38:
THE CIVIL MARRIAGE ACT, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF BILL C-38,
55
Royal Assent: 20 July 2005. Statutes of Canada S.C. 2005, c. 33,
60
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=c38&Parl=38&Ses=1..............
............................................................................15 & n.9 Psychotherapy Notes,
CAMFT director apologies for articles opposing same-sex marriage
, in the summer issue of
p43
29-5-2015
44
the Therapist
,
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
v http://mftprogress.blogspot.ca/2009/07/camft-director-apologies-forarticles.html.......................................................................................16 & n.16 Families Like M ine,

http://familieslikemine.com/
..
...
.1
6 & n.11 Scott James,
Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret
,
New York Times
, Jan. 28, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=2
22 & n.17 National Health and Social Life Survey (1994), in E.O. Laumann, et al,
The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 294-296); Nigel Dickson, C. Paul, P. Herbison, (2002).
Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood
,
Social Science & Medicine
, 56, 16071615.
24 & n.18 NARTH, Book Review of Robert Lerner, Ph.D. and Nagia, Althea, Ph.D.,
No
Basis: What the studies Dont tell us about same
-sex parenting.
Marriage Law Project, Washington D.C. 1/01.
http://www.narth.org/docs/lernernagai.html...............................................25 & n.20
vi Loren Marks, Louisiana State University
, Samesex parenting and childrens outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological associations
brief
on lesbian and gay parenting
, Social Science Research 41 (2012) 735751...
....................................................................................................27 & n.25 Nock Aff. 3,
Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada
, No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct.
of Justice).........2
4-15 & n.19 Walter Olson,
By reader acclaim: Man Sues Over Ga
y Marriage Question On Bar Exam
, July 7, 2007, http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/by-reader-acclaim-man-sues-over-gay-marriage-questionon-bar-exam/

....2
2 & n.16 Ellen C. Perrin, American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and
Family Health. Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. 109
Pediatrics
339
340 (2002), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full.......................26 & n.23

p44
29-5-2015
45
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
vii David Popenoe,

Life Without Fathers: Compelling Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensible for the Good
of Children
, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144,
146
27 & n.26 Amended Declaration of Sharon Quick, M.D., expert witness in the Iowa District Court For Polk
County, familywatchinternational.org/fwi/Quickexpertwitness
statement.pdf ..
.25 & n.21 Sharon Quick,
Replication of Quotation Errors
at: http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/for-policy-makers/marriage-rights-for-homosexual-couplesnot-the- best-for-children
.....
.26 & n.22 Mark Regnerus,
How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New
Family Structures Study
, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610...
27-29 & n.29 Mark Regnerus,

A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada
, The Witherspoon Inst., Oct 2013,
viii http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/10/10996/..................................29 & n.28
.....35
Ruth A.M. Ross, lawyer,
Let the Little Children
Three Parent Case 1 Update, Christian Legal Fellowship,
(Posted Jan 15.07),
p.12 ..17
Dawn Stefanowicz, author of
Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting
(
Redemption Press, April 1, 2014 and Kindle, Redemption Press, June 16, 2014)
....1
Dawn Stefanowicz, media guest, see INTERVIEWS with Dawn at:
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/documents/INTERVIEWSwithDawnS_009.pdf)
2
-3 Submitted Testimony, Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, Legislation Committee, The Senate Legal
and Constitutional Affairs,
26 November 2009, Australia
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Comp
leted_inquiries/2008-10/marriage_equality/report/index
ix Witness, Dawn Stefanowicz, Bill C-250, to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), Proceedings of
the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Issue 4 - Evidence for March 17, 2004,
Ottawa, Canada http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/373/lega/04evae.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=3&comm_id=11 Brief Submitted by Dawn Stefanowicz, Bill C-22, an act to
amend the Criminal Code on age of protection and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal
Records Act, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, House of Commons, April 17, 2007,
Number 060, 1
st
Session, 39
th
Parliament, Ottawa, Canada.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2834262&Language=E&Mode=1 Dawn
p45
29-5-2015
46
10
15
20
25
30
Stefanowicz - Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee - Public Hearing March 26, 2007,
Hartford, Connecticut. http://dawnstefanowicz.org/docs/R000326-DawnTMY.pdf Dawn C. Stefanowicz,
Public Hearing of the Judiciary Committee on the Marriage Amendment, April 11, 2006, Boston,
Massachusetts. http://www.voteonmarriage.org/leghearing.shtml#dawn
....also 22
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/ourstories.htm......................................1-2, 11-12
x
Andy Towle, GLAAD Issues Call To Action Over FX Networks 30 Days, June
25, 2008, http://www.towleroad.com/2008/06/glaad-issued-a.html and cast of 30 Days, Same-sex Parenting:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3066930/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t16
....21
Marriage Rights for Homosexual Couples: Not Best for Children Critique of AAP Special Report Den A. Trumbull, MD., Joseph R. Zanga, MD, FAAP, Leah M. Willson, MD, FAAP, Vicki Tucci, Esq.,
Letter to the Editor: The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and
Well-being of Children: In Reply http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/for-policy-makers/marriagerights-for-homosexual-couples-not-the- best-for-children
.......32
Judith Wallerstein, et al.,
The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A25 Year Landmark Studies,
(New York: Hyperion, 2000)...................33
xi Wright RH, Cummings NA, editors.
Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm
. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group; 2005, p.xiv and 308.26
35
1
40
45
50
55
60

I,
1
Dawn Stefanowicz,
2
am writing this amicus curiae brief in support of Defendants/Appellants Rick Perry, et al., to ask that Texas
respect the original definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
My interest in this case,
De Leon v. Perry
, No. 14-50196 (No. 5:13-cv-982, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2014)), is for three key reasons.
Firstly, my interest is due to my diverse personal, professional and social experiences with my father, his
same-sex sexual partners and associated gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual subcultures during the first 30
years of my life. Secondly, my interest in this case is due to the review of the (mostly flawed) same-sex
parenting research and social science research. Thirdly, my interest is based on continuing direct
communications with many adults from GLBT households. Years ago, I began communications with adult
children with a gay or lesbian parent
most adult children wanted to remain anonymous. Adult children marked by an * I personally
communicated with and received permission to post each of
1
see
p46
29-5-2015
47
Fed. R. App. P. 29. All parties have filed blanket permission with the Court for amicae/i to write briefs.
2
Dawn Stefanowicz, author of
Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting
(Redemption Press, April 1, 2014 and Kindle, Redemption Press, June 16, 2014).
2
10
15
20
25
30
35
their stories to my website since 2006: Lee Taylor*, Debbie Smith*, Mitzy Lancaster*, Dolores Oliveira*,
Jeremy Deck, Jakki Edwards*, Denise Schick*, Charles Mitchell, Suzanne Cook* and Nathan Bell*. (See our
stories at http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/ourstories.htm (last visited August 4, 2014, as with all other
Internet links herein).)
ARGUMENT
My position against same-sex marriage is determined based on my review of the research on marriage and
parenting as well as communications with other adult children who grew up in
alternative households, involving at least one parent
who had same-sex relationships. Due to the long-term negative impact experienced by these children, the
widespread political correctness and silencing about the impact on children, the threats to livelihoods and
relationships, only a small number of adult children have gone public.
I. GROWING UP IN A GAY HOUSEHOLD
I thank the Court for this opportunity, by the way. I would like to mention that I am an internationally
recognized speaker, author and media spokesperson.
3
I acknowledge that children are impacted long-term by various family structures and living arrangements. I
here address the impact of legislation affecting children,
3
For some information about me as media guest,
see
INTERVIEWS with Dawn
, http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/documents/INTERVIEWSwithDawnS_009.pdf.
3
40
45
and I have advocated for children and families, pertaining to marriage, parenting, sexuality and education.
Internationally, my testimony has been submitted to the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Standing Committee and to
Argentinas senators. I have addres
sed party leaders in Paraguay. I testified at the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs on hate crime legislation in 2004 and have spoken to a wide range of groups. And I
have provided testimony in six U.S. States: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Florida, Iowa, Maryland and
Washington.
Only my testimonies where hyperlinks are available are listed: A.
50
55
Submitted Testimony, Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, Legislation Committee, The Senate Legal
and Constitutional Affairs
,
26 November 2009, Australia;
4
B.
60
Witness, Dawn Stefanowicz, Bill C-250, to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), Proceedings of the
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Issue 4 - Evidence for March 17, 2004,
Ottawa, Canada;
p47
29-5-2015
48
5
10
4
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and
_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/marriage_equality/report/ index.
5
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/373/lega/04eva-e.htm?Language
=E&Parl=37&Ses=3&comm_id=11.
4
C.
15
20
25
30
35
Brief Submitted by Dawn Stefanowicz, Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code on age of protection
and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights, House of Commons, April 17, 2007, Number 060, 1st Session, 39th Parliament, Ottawa,
Canada;
6
D.
Dawn Stefanowicz - Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee - Public Hearing March 26, 2007,
Hartford, Connecticut;
7
E. Dawn C. Stefanowicz, Public Hearing of the Judiciary Committee on the Marriage Amendment, April 11,
2006, Boston, Massachusetts.
8
I was born in Toronto, Canada and grew up with a homosexual father, his same-sex sexual partners, exposed
to the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) subcultures, during the first 30 years of my life. I loved my
father absolutely. I am always compassionate towards men and women who struggle with their
sexuality/gender identity. Many of us children who grew up under the GLBT umbrella struggle with sexuality
confusion too.
6
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2834262 &Language=E&Mode=1.
7
http://dawnstefanowicz.org/docs/R000326-DawnTMY.pdf .
8
http://www.voteonmarriage.org/leghearing.shtml#dawn.
40
5
45
My father grew up in a violent alcoholic home where he was verbally, physically and sexually abused by
older male relatives. As an adolescent, he had male sexual partners. Though my father initially married my ill
and passive mother, it was during my infancy that my father brought boyfriends into our home, one who lived
with us until I was almost six. Both my twin brother and I were sexually abused by our dad.
50
55
60
By age 3, I unconsciously turned away from Dad to look for a substitute for fathers love, and in later years,
looked for boyfriends. Along with nightmares and a major speech impediment for 7 years, sleepless nights,
challenges academically, decades of depression and suicidal ideation, I felt unworthy of love. Peer
relationships were difficult for me. It was constantly stressful around my father and his partners. Dad spent
most of his attention on his male lovers. I never felt safe and secure at home. For a little girl to grow up in a
gay home and GLBT subcultures damages her sense of femininity and budding womanhood. Women are not
the primary recipients of love and kindness; male and female are not considered equal and necessary.
I wasnt surrounded by average heterosexual couples. Dads partners slept and ate in our home, and they took
me along to meeting places in the GLBT
p48
29-5-2015
49
6
10
15
20
communities. I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex,
sadomasochism and the ilk. There was no guarantee that any of my Dads partners would be
around for long, and yet I often had to obey them. My rights and innocence were violated.
At nine, I was deeply grieved to find out that two of my fathers partners committed suicide after Dad
rejected them. Even Dad was suicidal and used prescription sleeping pills for years. When I was about
nine, Dad took me to the downtown sex shop, and to see the work of gay artists, which sometimes
symbolized phallic art. Hed take me to nude beaches and public parks where gay men met. If the
police were coming, theyd tip one another off and stop sexual activity. The gay community was quite
informed about their meeting places for sex across North America, including: public beaches, gay
bars, bathhouses, mall restrooms, back alleys, gyms or even parks where children played. My father
cruised all over Canada. He also loved coming to the United States for vacationing and cruising; his
favorite cities included San Francisco, New York, Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. This was before the
Internet ages online gay hookup or cruising sites, when men regularly visited the gay bars and
bathhouses.
7
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
As owner of an executive recruiting agency, my father also kept an apartment near his downtown office
where he could meet someone for quick sex. My father liked well- dressed, clean-cut men, who were about
10 years younger than he was. Once, when I was in the 10th grade, my father attended my schools band
performance briefly. I saw his eyes widen when he saw all the teenage boys performing on the stage with
me. He suddenly disappeared. I was heartbroken that he was really there to pick up young men. At times, my
father would tell me what to wear to dress provocatively and wed go out cruising. I didnt like being treated
as an object, but I wanted to spend time with him. Ultimately I was seeking his love and acceptance. I was
not allowed to freely question him, bring up moral arguments, or hurt his feelings, or I would face long-term
repercussions. The dangerous road my father and his sexual partners walked included: mental anguish,
psychological impact and physical health risks. Some of my fathers partners committed suicide when
relationships soured. They often had alcohol and drug addictions and were isolated from family members.
Many of them had sexually-transmitted diseases, lost many partners, had shortened lives and died of
HIV/AIDS. I still grieve the loss of these men.
8
It was not a safe place for children. As a child, youre at high risk of exposure to particular pathogens which
can be passed on surfaces. These surfaces include: shared utensils and dishes, toothbrushes, linens and
towels. As a little girl, I picked up whatever razor was left lying around in our washroom and began shaving
my legs - even if it belonged to one of Dad's partners. Gay sex is messy. I would see and sometimes launder
dirty bed sheets, covered with sperm, feces and lubricant; on occasion. I never saw condoms. During my
teens, I became ill for a few years; and my father sent me to a medical specialist who treated gay men. My
blood was tested; afterwards, I was told to rest. A few years ago, I told my physician about my father. My
doctor sent me for extensive blood tests required for high risk groups, such as gay men and prostitutes. Test
results showed I had been exposed to pathogens. My father said that one or more of his partners may sexually
abuse my brothers; yet, my father continued coming home with different men. It was normal practice for gay
men to approach young adolescent males for sex. When I brought home a 14-year-old male friend, my father
and his boyfriend approached him for sex.
9
60
Different men would come to live or visit with us for a time. They had sex all over the house: in the
washroom, hallway, my brothers and my bedrooms, and the recreation room and attic. A fatherless 18p49
29-5-2015
50
10
15
year-old artist came to live with us (my father also had sex with his younger brother who weeks later
committed suicide). Theyd go out cruising.
Men came home for group sex. My younger brother, unable to cope, was in trouble with the law,
dropping out of school in grade 9. My twin brother witnessed a lot, including group sex and gay porn.
By his late teens, he attempted suicide. Growing up, these events harmed us in many ways. I had a
twisted view of sexuality, gender, marriage and did not want to marry or have children. While still a
girl, it seemed better if I had been born a boy Dad even encouraged me to dress manly and wear
mens cologne. I felt very stressed and afraid. I never knew what my father and his partners would do
next, where they would go or who they would meet up with. His relationships were unstable. Even
when partnered, my father and his partner would still cruise for sex with other men. In my twenties,
after marrying my husband and moving out of Toronto, I reached out to my father. My father shared
more than I was allowed to share. We would talk on the phone until he was too tired to speak. Our
visits were emotional for me, especially the last one. I was able to hold his hand while restraining tears,
10
20
25
30
35
speak a few words, until it became unbearable. My father died of AIDS in 1991. Shortly afterwards, I
completed final accounting exams and began therapy.
II. DAUGHTERS OF GAY FATHERS
A few years ago, I reviewed comments from six adult daughters of gay fathers. Most daughters wanted to
remain anonymous. Political correctness was unimportant as there were no custody disputes and they were no
longer dependent children. They had no need to support a gay ideology. However, while growing up, one had
to go along with what father wanted to please him, and be with him, and it may have appeared that we were
quite accepting of gay ideology. Daughters were careful to not anger or hurt their fathers feelings. Even today,
if a father is still alive, caution is taken in conversations to ensure fathers are not offended. Unfortunately,
that means daughters often find themselves denying, suppressing and or lying about their real feelings. The
daughters are careful about bringing their children around their father, as some fathers were sexually
abusive. One daughter could not bring her children around her father because he directed a gay youth dropin centre in a major city in California, and he was having sex with some vulnerable male youth there. None
of the daughters mentioned homophobia or lack of tolerance as the reasons why they suffered. Rather,
fathers sexual choices and partnerships were
11
40
45
named. None expressed a need for social tolerance; instead, daughters expressed a feeling of being alone and
desire to connect with other adult children. Often, daughters felt a sense of abandonment, that they were not
valued and affirmed. Adult daughters often experience relationship difficulties, including problems with trust
and intimacy. Fathers seem oblivious to these deep-seated needs of their daughters. The average age of adult
daughters of gay fathers who contacted me was the 40s. Sometimes the impact on siblings is mentioned.
Some daughters and their siblings were sexually abused as children. All daughters expressed some level of
present-day emotional distress. They have often dealt with their fathers manipulation, control and threats and
may still today. Daughters tended to please as dependents but once they had a greater level of independence
physically and emotionally, they began to distance themselves from a fathers control, even if deprived of
some level of a relationship with him or losing out on valuable gifts or even an inheritance.
50
55
Overall, daughters seek wholeness and some level of reconciliation with their fathers, if possible, despite the
expressed sadness and anger. No daughters expressed that their fathers understood their true thoughts and
feelings.
III. INSTABILITY OF GAY HOUSEHOLDS
12
60
Over 50 adult children from alternative households, plus spouses/ex-spouses with children and other family
members have contacted me.
p50
29-5-2015
51
10
15
20
25
30
It is quite difficult to discuss the implications of growing up in a gay household until later in adulthood when
we have developed a measure of personal identity and independence apart from our GLBT parent, partners
and the subcultures. We are often forced to approve and tolerate all forms of expressed sexuality, including various sexual
and gender identity preferences. The varied family forms, living arrangements and imposing cultural values
play havoc on us as children. Our home environments have unique and unstable characteristics, making it
difficult to classify adult children into narrow and restrictive categories for research purposes, especially for
gay parenting studies. These unstable characteristics in our home environments include the presence and/or
absence of the following: a. biological parent(s), b. legal parents/guardians (incl. foster/adoptive parents), c.
parents sexual partners,
and d. number of different residences. As well, parental marital status can vary and include: a. single, b.
cohabiting with one or more boyfriends and/or girlfriends, c. married, d. divorced and/or e. widowed.
13
Various parental sexual partner(s) may be present in the home environment(s) during some or all of our
childhoods. Thus, children may have lived with one or more parent(s) and/or one or more parental sexual
partner(s) in one or more residential settings. Imagine what it is like for a child to have more than two
parents, which includes your fathers and/or mothers new sexual partner(s) who may go before the court to
request to be legal parents, so that you as a child have to split weekends, holidays and Christmases in
different residences with different family members (who do not get along or talk with each other) based on
your parents current and previous sexual partners. You end up never having a real home. Your childhood is
divided to please the adults
(whether or not they are called your parents). Now, these adults have argued about where you live, who
you visit, what schools you attend, which doctors you see, what medical procedures you have, what
faith/religion you practice, et cetera.
You are often forced, against your conscience, to call dads or moms sexual partners: daddy or mommy or
special nicknames. Family can involve related siblings, half-brothers or sisters, step-siblings, biological
parents, other
legal parents and dads and/or moms past and current sexual partners. Same-sex marriage creates
insurmountable legal, emotional and psychological hurdles for children.
35
14
40
45
50
55
My father had a lot of sexual partners, some of whom lived in our home. Other lovers only visited, staying for
meals and overnights. At least three of my fathers partners could have requested to be my legal parents,
since they had some care-taking role in my everyday life, even if that meant cooking, cleaning or providing a
tip for homework or babysitting, similar to what an auntie or grandma would do. Thus, there were often
varied parental sexual partnerships, family structures, residential settings and cultural values during our
upbringing. Though fostering and adoption are ways we can enter gay households, most of us were conceived
heterosexually. More recently, at-home insemination kits, artificial reproductive technologies, egg and/or
sperm donors and surrogacy are accessed. Same-sex marriage treats children like traded commodities,
purposely depriving them of their biological mother and/or biological father. Children lose forever knowing
and relating to their natural mom and/or dad. Childrens identity and security are robbed. What child
does not need to know his or her biological ancestral roots, next-of-kin and genetic and familial
characteristics (such as physical appearance, medical history, disposition, ethnic and religious origins
and other qualities)? When biological parents are reduced to just egg and sperm donors, children are
purposely deprived of their right to their natural father, natural mother and roots of origin.
15
When same-sex marriage passed in Canada in July, 2005, parenting was immediately redefined, removing
parentage from its biological origins. Canada's gay marriage law, Bill C-38,
9
p51
29-5-2015
52
10
15
included a provision to erase the term natural parent and replace it across the board with gender-neutral
legal parent in federal law. Now, all children have legal parents, as defined by the state, which means
parental rights are have been usurped by the government. Thus, it is a lie when you
hear, Permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any
rights. In effect, same-sex marriage permits state powers to override the autonomy of biological parents and
deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage.
IV. SILENCING OUR VOICES
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists magazine pulled my article, and all other articles
opposed to same-sex marriage from their summer edition 2009, after activists became agitated and threatened
action. To satiate the
9
BILL C-38: THE CIVIL MARRIAGE ACT, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF BILL C-38,
Royal Assent: 20 July 2005. Statutes of Canada S.C. 2005, c. 33,
available at
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/ bills_ls.asp?ls=c38&Parl=38&Ses=1.
20

16
25
30
35
40
45
activists, CAMFT reprinted the same summer magazine edition but without the anti-same-sex marriage
articles.
10
After providing a review copy of my book, Out From Under , to the purchaser for a large national chain local
bookstore, and following up, the purchaser never replied back. Yet, this local store had a whole section of
pro-gay books and positive essays from kids who grew up with a gay parent. While researching a woman
raised by a gay father, Abigail Garner, author of the Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It
Like It Is
,
11
she had mentioned to an interviewer (who also interviewed me) that her book was edited to not offend their
parents and partners. It made me wonder how children of gay parents can actually tell it like it is, if their
words are censored? If anything hurts the feelings of our GLBT parent(s) and their partners, does not support
same-sex marriage and parenting, it is often edited out of books, essays, and same-sex parenting studies.
There are incentives available to teens to stay
10
Psychotherapy Notes,
CAMFT director apologies for articles opposing same-sex marriage
, in the summer issue of the Therapist, July 1, 2009, http://mftprogress.blogspot.ca/2009/ 07/camft-directorapologies-for-articles.html.
11
http://familieslikemine.com/.
50
17
55
60
connected to the GLBT communities, such as scholarships if one has a GLBT

parent, is out as a teen, and or has performed a few years of
political activism.
12
A few years ago, the
Tyra Banks Show
contacted me, looking for a person who was pro-gay and raised by a gay parent. When they found out my
views, I was disqualified as a potential guest. I have been censored in other print, radio and television
interviews. In Washington, DC, I attended a multiple-day taping for a reality program, 3
p52
29-5-2015
53
10
15
20
25
0 Days
(
Same-sex Parenting
, aired June 24, 2008), and most of my interview with Morgan Spurlock was edited out, leaving less than 3
minutes of airing at the beginning of the program with the rest of the program about 2 gay men raising 4
adopted boys and a woman who chose to live with them for 30 days, who opposed same-sex parenting. And,
yet, GLAAD was extremely upset and asked that
30 Days
pull out all 3 minutes of the material questioning gay parenting.
13
My voice has been censored numerous times in Canada. For example, after speaking with two producers of
two different television programs, they told me
12
Kathy Belge, About.com,
Top 10 LGBT Scholarships - Top College Scholarships for LGBT Students
, http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/youth/ tp/Scholarships.htm.
13
Andy Towle,
GLAAD Issues Call To Action Over FX Networks 30 Days
, Towleroad, June 25, 2008, http://www.towleroad.com/2008/06/glaad-issued-a.html, and cast of
30 Days
,
Same-sex Parenting
: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3066930/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t16.
18
30
35
40
45
50
that gay activists had complained to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC),
similar to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), after my story had been aired on their television programs.
Due to the pressure from gay activists, CRTCs investi
gations and threats of
removal of broadcasting licenses, and television stations fears of a hate crime
charge and/or a human rights commission fine, I was banned from being a guest, even though I had shared
my testimony gently. Even in Dublin, Ireland in 2008, while on a major live radio broadcast, the host turned
off my volume whenever he
didnt like what I had to say.
I have been verbally attacked, called vulgar names through hate-filled e-mails,
such as the following: You are incredibly wrong and
promoting hate. You are a
homophobe!; You are full of *#&%!;
a new, despicably creative way to
spread hate ; and homophobic bigots that cause more harm to society
And, hateful e-mails from adults
like this, I hope that your site is shut down on
the basis of antihate laws. Theyve actually tried to institute laws in Canada
which would censor links to research about homosexuality or anything considered politically incorrect. Hate
crime law and Human Rights Commissions currently
19
55
60
censor truth about same-sex issues.

14
Activists have also sent me e-mails threatening physical violence and death: Dawn is a homophobe;
prejudice you spout?; die; Your narrow-minded views ; I find you cruel; and kill
you It is no wonder that I fear for my own life and family. I have needed security and or police presence
at most of my speaking venues due to the unsafe atmosphere created by gay activists. Again, I have spoken
p53
29-5-2015
54
10
15
in-person throughout Canada, the United States, Mexico, Paraguay and Ireland, and participated in worldwide media interviews, so that I must be wary of threatening activists wherever I go. I am not alone. An adult
man, raised in a gay household, contacted me, asking for help. He feared for his life while residing in an
American gay neighborhood. He wanted badly to get out of the business of providing raunchy gay porn
websites but knew his gay sex partners would turn on him and even kill him, if he dared leave. As children,
we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion. Most adult children from gay
households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing
professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some
14
Dawn C. Stefanowicz, Pub. Hrg of the Judiciary Committee on the Marriage Amend., Apr. 11, 2006,
Boston, Mass. http://www.voteonmarriage. org/leghearing.shtml#dawn.
20
family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have
threatened to leave no inher
itance, if the children dont accept their parents partner
20
25
30
35
du jour
. Some adult children find it too painful to share their traumatic memories and the associated overwhelming
feelings. The special-interest GLBT groups and so-called support groups for kids sometimes act, or function,
as fronts for a far darker side that silences, intimidates and threatens the children who want to share the truth,
allowing only a politically-correct version of our childhoods to be heard. These special-interest groups
support political and legal objectives toward same-sex marriage, ignoring the horrendous inequality,
permanent losses and prejudice to children in the name of adult sexual rights. Children lose forever their
rights to know and be raised by their married biological father and mother.
Marrying and having children are not fundamental human rights or civil rights for everyone. There are
necessary unique intrinsic values, responsibilities
and obligations in man-woman marriage which benefit children and society which cannot be duplicated in
other family structures. The adult children I have heard from do not support the false notion of
homophobia
a word that is used to name-call and silence us.
21
40
45
50
55
60
We know first-hand the dangers to children of same-sex home environments. Special-interest groups want
legalized same-sex marriage and forced tolerance while denying the physical, emotional and psychological
harms to children. At the same time, activists claim victim status while wielding totalitarian control, by legal
and legislative means, to silence speech, religious and or moral disapproval and conscience rights. The
special interest-groups attempt to tell decision makers and the public that there is no harm to children, often
by using
dependent
children, teens and young adults who have not yet left the extraordinary bullying influences of the GLBT
environments.
V. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS & SCIENCE
Censorship exists within the social sciences, academia and governmental institutions. Most often, politically
incorrect research is not funded and articles are not published in professional journals. Doctors Wright &
Cummings, both leaders in their field of psychology (past presidents of divisions in the American
Psychological Association) and admittedly advocates of a progressive social and political agenda, state the
following in their book,
Destructive Trends in Mental Health
:
15
15
Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm
(NA Cummings & RH Wright eds.), New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.
p54
29-5-2015
55
22
10
15
20
25
30
[A]dvocacy for scientific and professional concerns has been usurped by agenda-driven ideologues who
show little regard for either scientific validation or professional efficacy. Although I am in
agreement with many of APAs stances, I am opposed to the process
that has diminished its credibility. It is no longer perceived as an authority that presents scientific evidence
and professional facts. The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on
the decision makers in our society.
Id.
at pp. xiv and 308. Unfortunately, some legal bar associations have not passed students if they hold to a
politically incorrect view on same-sex marriage.
16
VI. SAME-SEX PARENTING STUDIES
Some people think GLBT households look like heterosexual versions. The facts are that the GLBT
subcultures do not look at marriage in the same way. A
New York Times
article provides a glimpse into why. Scott James wrote
Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret
(Jan. 28, 2010),
17
expressing how gay couples are open to sex outside their relationships,
see id
.
In fact, research shows that more than 50% of male same
sex relationships will have multiple sexual partners within the first year.
16
35
40
45
50
55
60
Walter Olson,
By reader acclaim: Man Sues Over Gay Marriage Question On
Bar Exam
, July 7, 2007, http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/by-reader-acclaim-man-sues-over-gay-marriage-questionon-bar-exam/.

17
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=2.
23
Marriage has always been considered a traditional, man
woman institution which upholds monogamy for the benefit of children and society. The GLBT subcultures
have a much broader understanding of sexual relationships without restrictive boundaries regarding number
of sexual partners, various sexualities, gender identities, roles and expressions. Many social science studies
show that children raised in man
woman married households have better outcomes than children who are raised in step
parented and single
parented households. And when you review same
sex parenting studies, you find they are replete with methodological flaws, small sample sizes, research bias,
participant bias and funding bias. No same
p55
29-5-2015
56
10
sex parenting studies fit all these criteria: random, population

based, nationally representative and longitudinal, following children over a twenty
five year period. Adult participants are selected through advertisements in GLBT newspapers, online and
through support groups. Most of the same
sex parenting studies involve e
mailed self
reports by mothers (not the children), comparing single lesbian women with single heterosexual women
without considering the implications of the presence or absence of fathers.
15
20
In selection of the participants, often more

educated and financially
successful lesbians are recruited for the studies while less consideration is given to the often
24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
poorer heterosexual single mothers. There are cases where the same participants are used in different studies.
Often, the conclusions of these studies are politically correct, to improve opportunities for custody cases
while the conclusions do not match the observations found. Where children are asked questions, the questions
are usually vague; the dependent children are often critical of the parent and their living arrangements;
however, the dependent child minimizes his pain so as to not offend the parent. Interestingly enough, being
gay or lesbian is based on self
reports of participants. These reports do not consider the fact that most men and women who say they are
gay or lesbian have had and will have heterosexual sexual contact, according to Laumann, et al.
18
Dr. Steven Nock, research methodologist, at the request of the Attorney General of Canada, submitted an
affidavit opposed to same-sex marriage in the
Halpern v. AG
case in 2000 in which he reported over 200 same-sex parenting studies which
contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution and not a single one
of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of
18
Nat
l Health and Soc. Life Survey (1994),
in
E. O. Laumann, et al.,
The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, Chicago
(University of Chicago Press, pp. 294-296); Nigel Dickson, C. Paul, P. Herbison,
Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood
, 56 Soc. Sci. & Med. 56 1607-1615 (2002).
25
scientific re
search.
19
When clinical psychologists Dr. Mark Lerner and Dr. Althea Nagai reviewed 49 same-sex parenting studies,
all were found unreliable and the sample sizes too small for relevance.
p56
29-5-2015
57
10
20
When Sharon Quick, M.D., a pediatric anesthesiologist, and pediatric critical care physician and former
assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine,
reviewed 63 same-sex parenting studies, she found major design flaws, interpretive errors and unsupported
conclusions. T
he studies conclusions, which stated that there were no differences between the outcomes of homosexual
and heterosexual parents,
often contradicted the findings and comments, raising concerns about the well- being of children with parents
with same-sex attraction and behavior. Further details can be found in Dr. Quick
s expert testimony re
Iowas Defense of
Marriage Act.
21 19
15
20
25
30
Nock Aff. 3, Halpern v. Atty Gen. of Canada, No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. of
Justice).
20
NARTH, Book Review of Robert Lerner, Ph.D. and Nagia, Althea, Ph.D.,
No Basis: What the studies d
ont tell us about same
-sex parenting
. Marriage Law Project, Washington D.C., Jan. 2001, http://www.narth.org/docs/lernernagai.html.
21
Amended Decl. of Sharon Quick, M.D., expert witness in the Iowa District Court For Polk County,
familywatchinternational.org/fwi/Quickexpertwitnessstatement. pdf.
26
Sharon Quick, M.D.s rebutta
l
Replication of Quotation Errors
35
40
45
50
55
60
22
reveals that the flawed July 2006 Special Report
The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of
Children
, addressing psychosocial characteristics of same-sex parenting, has large portions copied directly from the
2002 Technical Report,
23
a Technical Report which has 57% of its quotations incorrectly referenced
. Yet, special interest groups have used this July 2006 Special Report to win same-sex civil partnerships,
marriage, and adoption in both legislative and court decisions in North America and around the world. The
American College of Pediatricians strongly disagrees with this Special Report and wrote a letter to the Editor
of the AAP, expressing its opposition to civil partnerships and samesex marriage because of its absence of evidence based research and potential negative consequences on
children.
24
22
http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/for-policy-makers/marriage-rights-for-homosexual-couples-notthe-best-for-children.
23
Ellen C. Perrin, American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family
Health. Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. 109 Pediatrics 339
340 (2002),
available at
p57
29-5-2015
58
http://pediatrics. aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full.
24
10
Marriage Rights for Homosexual Couples: Not Best for Children Critique of AAP Special Report Den A. Trumbull, MD.,
Joseph R. Zanga, MD, FAAP, Leah M. Willson, MD, FAAP, Vicki Tucci, Esq.,
Letter to the Editor: The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health
and Well-being of Children: In Reply
http://www.acpeds.org/the-collegeCase: 14-50196 Document: 00512728662 Page: 38 Date Filed: 08/11/2014
27
15
20
25
30
35
40
A recent study by Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, analyzed the 59 same-sex parenting studies
cited in the American Psychological Association (APA) 2005 policy paper. None of the stud
ies which were cited in the APAs publication were based on random, population-based samples of lesbian
and gay parents compared with random, population-based samples of intact biological married parents and
their children. In fact, only 4 of the 59 studies met the APA's standard
of providing evidence of statistical power.
25
Popenoe and Wallerstein confirm the importance of fatherhood and stable marriages.
26
Mark Regnerus peer -reviewed article, How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have SameSex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
, compares eight different kinds of family structure (from an original population of 15,000 adult children),
including those in which a child was raised by a parent who had had a same-sex romantic relationship.
Regnerus finds speaks/for-policy-makers/marriage-rights-for-homosexual-couples-not-the-best-for-children
.
25
Loren Marks, Louisiana State University, Same- sex parenting and childrens outcomes: A closer
examination of the American Psychological Associations brief on lesbian and gay parenting, Soc. Sci. Res.
41 (2012) 735-751.
26
David Popenoe,
Life Without Fathers: Compelling Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensible for the Good of
Children144, 146 (Cambridge: Harv. Univ. Press, 1996); Judith Wallerstein, et al.,
The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study (New York: Hyperion, 2000)
.
28
45
50
that the intact biological family (IBF), headed by a man and woman married to each other throughout the
raising of their own children, is indeed the most secure environment for child development.
Children raised by a parent who had been involved with someone of the same sex are, to a significant degree,
more likely to record, in their own estimation in interviews, a variety of negative outcomes related to their
upbringing, i.e. depression, suicidal ideation, feelings of being unsafe, need for therapy, greater risk of sexual
abuse and or forced sexual acts against their will, higher risk of homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality,
higher risk of thinking their current relationship was in trouble, higher risk of infidelity while cohabiting or
married, lower levels of educational and employment achievement, higher levels of public assistance, and
higher incidence of criminal conduct, among other negative outcomes.
55
60
On 25 out of 40 outcomes evaluated by Regnerus, children of lesbian mothers (LMs) fared suboptimally
compared to children of IBFs. On 11 out of 40 outcomes, children of gay fathers (GFs) fared suboptimally
compared to children
p58
29-5-2015
59
29
10
15
20
25
of IBFs. Note that only 1 in every 17 children of gay parents actually lives with a same-sex couple.
27
Finally, the Canadian census supports the social science that finds that children do best when they are raised
by their married, biological mother and father.
28
CONCLUSION
I ask that the Court support that marriage needs to remain a societal foundation that constitutes, represents,
and defends the inherently procreative relationship between the husband and the wife for the welfare of their
biological children and society. Thus, 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
Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815 (734) 904-6132 dbo@boyleslaw.org Counsel for Amicus
Curiae Dawn Stefanowicz
27
Mark Regnerus,
How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New
Family Structures Study, 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 752
770 (July 2012),

available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610.
28
Mark Regnerus, A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada, The
Witherspoon Inst., Oct. 2013, http://www.thepublicdiscourse. com/2013/10/10996/.
30
30
35
40
registered CM/ECF users: Jonathan F. Mitchell Kyle D. Highful Beth Klusmann Michael P. Murphy OFFICE
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 Plaza San Antonio, TX 78205 Jessica M. Weisel AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 2029 Century Park, E., Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-0000 Michael P.
Cooley Andrew Forest Newman AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
31
45
50
55
60
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75204 August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted, s/David Boyle
Dawn Stefanowicz
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
32
p59
29-5-2015
60
10
15

because:
X
this brief contains 6073words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or
X
20
33
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Attorney for Amicus Curiae Dawn Stefanowicz Dated: August 4, 2014 Thank you for your time.
United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH 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 Boyle P.O. Box 15143 Long Beach, CA 90815 No. 14-50196 Cleopatra DeLeon, et al v.
Rick Perry, et al USDC No. 5:13-CV-982 Dear Mr. Boyle, You must submit the seven (7) paper copies of your brief required by
5TH CIR. R. 31.1 within five (5) days of the date of this notice pursuant to 5th Cir. ECF Filing Standard E.1. Failure to timely
provide the appropriate number of copies may result in the dismissal of your appeal pursuant to 5
TH CIR. R. 42.3. **You must electronically file a "Form for Appearance of Counsel" within 14 days from this date. You must
name each party you represent, see FED R. APP
.
P. 12(b) and 5TH CIR. 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 Clerk 504-310-7673 cc: Mr. Ralph Joseph Aucoin Sr. Mr. Richard
Arthur Bordelon Mr. Barry Alan Chasnoff Mr. Michael P. Cooley Ms. Deborah Jane Dewart Mr. Stuart Kyle Duncan Mr. William
C. Duncan Mr. Thomas Molnar Fisher
END QUOTE
https://www.scribd.com/doc/266828904/3-12-cv-30051-159
QUOTE
3:12-cv-30051 #159
Ratings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes: 0
Doc 159 - Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Amend
Doc 159 - Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Amend
p60
29-5-2015
61
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
More info:
Published by: Equality Case Files on May 27, 2015
Availability:
See more
See less
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : 3:12-CV-30051-MAP : v. : JUDGE MICHAEL A.
PONSOR : SCOTT LIVELY, : MAGISTRATE JUDGE : KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON Defendant. :
DEFENDANT SCOTT LIVELYS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS
MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY
MATERIAL
Defendant, Scott Lively (Lively), pursuant to L
ocal Rule 7.1(b)(2), files this memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Amend the Order Regarding
Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Material (Dkt. No. 149) filed by Plaintiff, Sexual Minorities Uganda
(SMUG). For the reasons stated herein, the motio
n should be denied.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
SMUGs motion asks the Court to change its mind on an issue the Court already decided against SMUG in
the Courts Order Regarding Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Material (Dkt. No. 106) (the
Confidentiality Order). The sole issue for the Courts decision is whether to create
a new category of Confidential Discovery Material (as defined in the Confidentiality Order)
designated Attorneys Eyes Only (or AEO), which SMUG wants to prevent Lively from
seeing.
But there has been no material change in circumstances justifying the Courts departure
from its prior ruling against an AEO restriction. And, like before, SMUG fails to make a sufficient
showing of compelling need to justify blocking Livelys access to critical discovery, thereby
profoundly hindering Livelys ability to participate and assist his counsel in his own defense.
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 152 As before, SMUG offers no evidence
to justify an AEO restriction, but is travelling on the mere allegations of wrongdoing by Lively in its
Complaint, which SMUG has made little attempt to prove in the more than three years since its filing. To be
sure, SMUG does not care whether it ever proves its allegations against Lively. In March of this year, Frank
Mugisha, SMUG's Executive Director, boasted to an American publication, Our goal is not actually about the
outcome of the case; our goal is the advocacy weve been able to do around the case.
1
In other words, the process is the punishment. In light of this admission that proving its case is not the goal,
every SMUG claim of injury caused by Lively is suspect; every security measure SMUG claims to have
taken in response to Lively's alleged conduct demands scrutiny; and the person on whose name SMUG is
flippantly trading for influence, Scott Lively, has the right to see and
evaluate all evidence SMUG may use to further its cause at Livelys expense. It is disingenuous for SMUG to
feign the desire for secrecy and obscurity behind an AEO restriction, while promoting internationally its
political human rights
case against Lively for the admitted purpose of increasing SMUG's profile.
SMUGs failure to meet the standards for an AEO restriction, shown below, and admitted ulterior motives,
shown above, require denial of SMUGs motion to amend the existing Confidentiality Order. Any other
outcome would further hamstring Livelys ability to rebut SMUGs baseless claims.
1
James McDonald, 3 Questions on The Battle for Uganda: Frank Mugisha brings the fight against oppression
to America (May 11, 2015 6:00 AM), http://www.advocate.com/ world/2015/05/11/3-questions-battleuganda.
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 153
THE EXISTING CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
SMUGs latest entreatment for an AEO restriction that would eject Lively from his own defense is nothing
new. The existing Confidentiality Order (Dkt. No. 106) represents the Courts
resolution of a contentious and thoroughly briefed dispute regarding the appropriate scope of confidentiality
protections for discovery materials in this case.
p61
29-5-2015
62
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
2
Importantly, Lively did not object to the entry of an appropriate protective order shielding certain genuinely
confidential information from disclosure. (Dkt. No. 90 at 1.) Lively by no means, however, conceded that the
actual situation in Uganda bore any resemblance to the gross exaggerations and misrepresentations set forth
in SMUGs motion for protective order, or in the Amended Complaint, and unequivocally denied (and
denies) that he has engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever. ( Id.) Nevertheless, Lively was amenable to entry
of a protective order to be used in those rare instances where the evidence establishes a reasonable probability
that public disclosure may cause legitimate harm. ( Id.) The proposed protective order submitted by SMUG,
however, went much too far, and would have profoundly prejudiced Livelys ability to assist in his own
defense, and the ability of his counsel to effectively defend him. ( Id.) Included in SMUGs proposed
protective order was an attorneys eyes only designation for certain limited discovery, which would have
prevented
2
The filings reflecting the disputed issues are Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 85); Plaintiffs
Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 86); Defendant Scott Livelys
Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 90); Electronic Order denying without
prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (Neiman, M.J.) (Dkt. No. 93); Joint Submission Regarding
Proposed Protective Order (Dkt. No. 96); Defendant Scott Livelys Response to the Parties Joint
Submission Regarding Protective Order (D
kt. No. 98); Plaintiffs Proposed Reply to Defedants Response to the Parties Joint Submission Regarding
Protective Order (Dkt. No. 99-1) (allowed by Dkt. No. 100); and Memorandum and Order with Regard to the
Parties Countervailing Submissions Regarding
A Proposed Protective Order (Dkt. No. 102).
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 154 Lively from considering and
discussing with his own counsel admittedly relevant evidence.
3
But, as determined by the Court, SMUG provided insufficient justification for imposing such handicaps on
Livelys defense.
In the Courts Electronic Order initially denying SMUGs motion for protective order (Dkt. No. 93), Judge
Neiman held, the court is not inclined to adopt the attorney's eyes only provision . . . for many of the reasons
raised by Defendant in his opposition; given that Defendant, as the sole defendant in this action and as uniquely
positioned to assist in his defense with regard to the events at issue, his counsel will no doubt need to communicate with him
without the strictures proposed by Plaintiff . (Emphasis added.) In the Courts subsequent Memorandum and Order
addressing additional issues
involving the scope of confidentiality protection sought by SMUG (Dkt. No. 102), Judge Neiman reiterated
that he was not inclined to accept an attorneys eyes-only provision given that Defendants counsel would
no doubt need to communicate with him as a sole defendant uniquely positioned to assist in his defense, and
stated he was also
concerned about shackling Defendants investigation of facts and witnesses in Uganda. (Dkt. No. 102 at 3 (emphasis
added).) Judge Neiman further concluded that Lively, to mount his defense, does need to investigate highly
sensitive matters without undue trammels. ( Id. (emphasis added).) Thus, the Court made clear its antipathy
towards AEO restrictions in this case, (Dkt. No. 93; Dkt. No. 102 at 3), and ultimately entered the existing
Confidentiality Order with no AEO restriction. While the Court did not foreclose completely the possibility
of a future AEO restriction upon a proper application, the Court conditioned any such restriction on a
showing of particularized and compelling need. (Conf. Order, 17.) This high bar set by the Court reflects
3 The AEO restriction in SMUGs first proposed protective order was for materials designated HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL, disclosure of which was limited to counsel and specified non-party persons. (Dkt. No.
86-3, 8.)
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 4 of 155 the near universal aversion of courts
to AEO restrictions except in very limited contexts not applicable here. SMUGs current motion to amend the
Confidentiality Order fails to satisfy this high standard.
To be sure, the Court did rule in SMUGs favor on numerous other contested issues in the fashioning of the
Confidentiality Order, which Lively respectfully contends has already adversely impacted his ability to test
and rebut SMUGs outrageous claims. (See Defendant Scott Livelys Objection to Protective Order, Dkt. No.
118.) To the extent the Courts rejection of an AEO provision reflected an attempt to compromise and strike
a balance between the parties competing interests, SMUG now wishes to deprive Lively even of that hard
fought concession, while retaining all of the other, numerous benefits it obtained. The unfairness of SMUGs
requested relief is evident.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
60
I.
p62
29-5-2015
63
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
SMUGS MOTION TO AMEND THE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER SHOULD BE DENIED

BECAUSE SMUG AGAIN FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE DRASTIC ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
RESTRICTION
EXCLUDING LIVELY FROM HIS OWN DEFENSE.
A. Imposing an AEO restriction on relevant discovery is a drastic measure which is highly disfavored.
The Courts preclusion of any AEO restriction except upon a showing of particularized and compelling
need (Conf. Order,
17) reflects the highly disfavored nature of such restrictions.
The common law presumes a right of public access to judicial records. Siedle v. Putnam Investments, Inc.,
147 F.3d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 1998). Although this right is not absolute, and courts may fashion protective orders
prohibiting public disclosure in limited circumstances, id . at 9-10, attorneys eyes only provisions are the
most restrictive possible protective order, and pose a significant handicap on the restricted litigant by
making it difficult, and perhaps impossible, for an attorney to counsel a client . . . on the basis of information
kept secret from the client. Arvco
6
Container Corp. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 1:08-CV-548, 2009 WL 311125, *5-6 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2009)
(denying request for attorneys eyes only protection). As such, an attorneys eyes only
restriction is highly disfavored because, it is a drastic remedy given its impact on the party entitled to the
information. For one thing, it limits the ability of the receiving party to view the relevant evidence, fully
discuss it with counsel, and make intelligent litigation decisions. Also, in many cases, it limits the ability of a
party to provide needed assistance to counsel.
Ragland v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of N. Dakota, 1:12-CV-080, 2013 WL 3776495 , *1-2 (D.N.D. June 25,
2013) (emphasis added) (collecting cases where restriction was denied). For this reason, attorneys eyes
only restrictions will only be justified in those rare instances where, unlike here, there is no other
effective alternative. Id . at *2 denying attorneys eyes only restriction).
B. SMUGs motion is wholly insufficient to justify the drastic and highly disfavored AEO restriction.
1. SMUG fails to put forth evidence of a compelling need for a n A E O
restriction.
SMUGs purported justifications for imposing an AEO restriction on documents relevant to Livelys defense
are protecting the safety of SMUGs constituents and preventing Livelys campaign of discrimination and
persecution. (Dkt. No. 150 at 8-9.) SMUG has presented absolutely no evidence that such a drastic measure
is warranted here. The only evidence before this Court is that Lively has never outed a homosexual, lesbian
or transgender person by publicly
revealing their sexuality or sexual preferences or whereabouts without their consent. (Declaration of Scott
Lively in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Protective Order (Lively Declaration, attached hereto
as Exhibit A), 2; Declaration of Scott Lively in Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Dkt.
No. 90
- 1, Lively Declaration 90-1, attached hereto as Exhibit B), 2.)
Lively has never assisted anyone in perpetrating such outings, nor has he encouraged or condoned such
outings. (Lively Decl.,
2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 3-4). On the Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 6 of 157
contrary, Lively has unequivocally condemned others in Uganda who have engaged in such outings, and
has praised the Ugandan courts for punishing them.
(Lively Decl., 2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 4.) Lively has no intention to publicly disclose the identity, sexuality,
sexual preferences or practices, whereabouts or associational activities of any homosexual, lesbian or
transgender person in Uganda or anywhere else. (Lively Decl., 2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 5.) SMUG has failed
to rebut this evidence with
anything that contradicts it. Notably, SMUGs motion comes after more than one year and a half of extensive,
full-fledged discovery in which literally tens of thousands of documents have been exchanged by the parties.
Still, the only justification that SMUG can muster now for excluding Lively from his own defense is
SMUGs unproven allegations
which provide a background to the instant dispute over a protective order. (Dkt. No. 150 at 4 (quoting
Dkt. No. 102 at 2).) These background allegations include a coordinated and sustained campaign [by an
unnamed person] to target and demonize the LGBTI community in Uganda, a leaked document [by an
unnamed person] that discussed the strategies of Plaintiff, and Livelys mere alleged association with four
Ugandan individuals who allegedly cons pired to out LGBTI advocates. (Dkt. No. 150 at 4-5.) However,
SMUG does not present a shred of evidence that Lively was himself involved in such alleged conduct, or that
he encouraged it, or that he even knew about it. There is nothing in SMUGs motion that even comes close to
rebutting Livelys sworn declarations that he has, in fact, condemned such conduct and that his association
with individuals in Uganda, including Stephen Langa, Martin Ssempa and James Buturo, has always been
p63
29-5-2015
64
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
and remains strictly for lawful and constitutionally-protected Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed
05/22/15 Page 7 of 158 purposes, that is, to lawfully speak and to engage in public and political advocacy on
civil and political matters of public importance. (Lively Decl., 2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 9.)
4
Punishing Lively for his lawful association with other individuals without any, much less strict, proof that he
was himself responsible for any unlawful conduct allegedly committed by those individuals, would be an
unconstitutional violation of Livelys First Amendment rights. See N. A. A. C. P. v. Claiborne Hardware
Co., 458 U.S. 886, 920 (1982) (Civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to
a group, some members of which committed acts of violence). SMUG has brought forth no evidence that
Lively has personally agreed to employ the illegal means contemplated by his associates in this case the
alleged forced outing of homosexuals which is the minimum threshold requirement for punishing
speech and association within the shadow of the First Amendment. United States v. Spock , 416 F.2d 165,
172, 176 (1st Cir. 1969). Indeed, SMUG has not even alleged that Lively has personally agreed to employ
the forced outing of homosexuals, much less proven it. Yet SMUG invites the Court to impose a debilitating
litigation handicap upon Lively, based solely upon his lawful association with others. This is nothing short of
an invitation to violate the associational rights of a United
4
In the nearly three years since filing the Amended Complaint, the only evidence adduced by SMUG relevant
to what Lively actually did in Uganda disproves SMUGs allegations. On May 12, 2105, SMUG took the
deposition of Caleb Brundidge, who spoke along with Lively at the March 2009 Seminar on Exposing the
Homosexual Agenda in Uganda. (Dkt. No. 27,
36; Transcript of Deposition of Caleb Brundidge on May 12, 2015 (Brundidge Deposition, excerpts of
which are attached hereto as Exhibit C.) (The attached excerpts are from the preliminary rough copy of the
Brundidge Deposition transcript provided to Livelys counsel by SMUGs counsel; the parties await the final
transcript.) Brundidge testified that Lively did not advocate violence against homosexuals, that the death
penalty be imposed for homosexual behavior or against homosexuals, that life sentences be imposed
against homosexuals, that the media publish the names and/or pictures and/or addresses of homosexuals,
that landlords should evict . . . homosexuals, that police should raid either the homes or the meetings of
homosexuals, or that police should arrest homosexuals or homosexual advocates. (Brundidge Dep. at
109:20-111:21.)
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 8 of 159 States citizen, even while invoking
those very same rights on behalf of a foreigner and stranger to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. courts.
SMUGs evidentiary failures are fatal to its request for an attorneys eyes only litigation burden. See, e.g. ,
Ragland
, 2013 WL 3776495 at *2 (attorneys eyes only provision should not be authorized simply because one of
the parties would prefer that certain information not be disclosed to an opposing party); Arvco Container
Corp., 2009 WL 311125 at * 8 (A litigant's vague feeling of discomfort or its desire to hobble its opponent
in litigation do not establish good cause); Dorchen/Martin Assoc., Inc. v. Brook of Cheboygan, 11-10561,
2012 WL 1936415, *1
(E.D. Mich. May 29, 2012) (Defendants submit good cause exists but they make no specific allegations, let
alone demonstrations of fact, indicating why good cause exists to impose the most restrictive order regarding
the requested information) (denying attorneys eyes only restriction); EQ Oklahoma, Inc. v. A Clean Env't
Co., 11-CV-510-GKF-PJC, 2012 WL 5429869, *1 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 7, 2012) (ACE set forth various factual
assertions in opposition to EQ's proposed order, but provided no evidentiary support to this Court) (denying
attorneys eyes only restriction) (emphasis in original). Moreover, SMUG has presented no authority for its
pro position that attorneys eyes only
provisions are even suitable outside of the trade secrets context, where they have been traditionally
employed.
See, e.g. , Ragland , 2013 WL 3776495 at *1 (limiting disclosure on an attorneys' eyes only basis is
recognized as an appropriate method of protecting information in very limited situations, e.g., cases involving trade
secrets) (emphasis added);
Multi-Core, Inc. v. S. Water Treatment Co., 139 F.R.D. 262 (D. Mass. 1991) (cited by SMUG) (ordering
disclosure of defendants secret formula to only plaintiffs counsel and experts).
It is one thing to preclude a litigant from knowing the secret formula of his competitors product, and another
thing entirely to Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 9 of 1510 preclude that
litigant from even knowing who is suing him, who is pointing the finger at him, and what their damages
claims are, and to prevent him from assisting in his own defense against them. SMUG has presented no case
in which this type of litigation handicap has ever been imposed. Indeed, SMUG unconvincingly cites two
other commercial trade secret cases to attempt to justify an AEO restriction in this case, Voice Domain
Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. CIV.A. 13-40138-TSH, 2014 WL 5106413 (D. Mass. 2014); WestsideMarrero Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., Inc., No. CIV. A. 97-3012, 1998 WL 186728 (E.D. La. 1998).
p64
29-5-2015
65
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Both, of course, are distinguishable. In Voice Domain Technologies and Westside-Marrero Jeep Eagle, a
finding of risk of subconscious or inadvertent disclosure was necessitated by the indisputable position of the
parties seeking disclosure as competitors of the parties seeking the restriction.
See 2014 WL 5106413 at *5; 1998 WL 186728 at *2. In neither, however, was the requesting partys position
as a
competitor the ultimate issue in the case. By contrast, in the instant case, SMUGs argument that Livelys
mere possession of confidential information creates a risk of disclosure endangering SMUG presumes the
ultimate fact in the case on which SMUG bears the burden of proof at trial that Lively is persecuting
SMUG. Lively unequivocally denies this ultimate fact of persecution, and SMUG has yet to even attempt to
prove it. It would be improper and unfair for this Court to presume that SMUG has already prevailed on its
claims, which the Court must do to accept SMUGs arguments, with the result being a substantial restriction
on Livelys ability to participate in his own defense against those very claims. The only non-commercial case
cited by SMUG, In re The City of New York , 607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir. 2010), strays even farther from relevance
to the instant dispute. In City of New York , the court held that the confidential intelligence files of the New
York City Police Department were Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 10 of
1511 protected from any disclosure by the law enforcement privilege, which shifted the burden to the
plaintiffs seeking disclosure to show a compelling need for the files. 607 F.3d at 929. Furthermore, the
primary interest at stake in restricting disclosure was the safety of not only NYPD officers, but also the entire
general public of New York City.
Id. at 936. In the instant case, SMUG can point to no similarly applicable privilege shifting the burden to
Lively to justify disclosure, nor can SMUG claim that it is seeking to protect the safety of the entire general
public of Uganda (or any of its cities). Having no evidence to prop up its motion, SMUG turns to bald
innuendo.
5
In between recitations of its unproved allegations against Lively of a coordinated and sustained campaign to
target and demonize the LGBTI community in Uganda, and more unproved allegations of Livelys work
with Ugandan -based co-conspirators, SMUG indelicately interposes an account of a confidential document
leaked in Uganda that discussed the strategies of Plaintiff . . . . (Dkt. No. 150 at 4-5.) But SMUG fails, as
usual, to cite a single fact connecting Lively to the leak. The alleged leak supposedly took place in 2012.
(Dkt. No. 150 at 4-5.) Since this was well before discovery in this case began, and before SMUG produced
any documents to Lively, Lively could not possibly have been the source of the alleged leak. Tellingly,
SMUG does not
5
This is not the first time SMUG has turned to innuendo in the absence of evidence. For example, in its
original Complaint, SMUG alleged that David Kato, SMUGs Advocacy Officer, was bludgeoned to
death in his home, four months after he was outed by a tabloid newspaper under the headline,
HANG THEM, thereby implying that Kato was killed by a homophobe presumably enraged by
Livelys speeches and writings. (Dkt. No. 1, 8, 126-130.) As reported in leading homosexual
publications and respected international media, however, Kato was killed not by an enraged
homophobe but by a homosexual prostitute whom Kato hired for sexual services and refused to pay.
(Dkt. No. 22 at 5 & n.5, 6; Dkt. No. 33 at 7-8 & nn.6-7.) SMUG ignored these rebuttals outright, and
continued to make the same insinuations in its Amended Complaint, albeit in a somewhat more
nuanced fashion. (Dkt. No. 5, 10, 219-222.)
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 11 of 1512 expressly blame Lively for the
alleged leak, and is content to simply allege that the leak occurred, hoping that innuendo will adequately fill
the place of proof. Moreover, Lively has provided his sworn declarations of strict compliance with the
existing Confidentiality Order, which SMUG cannot refute. (Lively Decl., 2, 3; Lively Decl. 90-1, 6-8.)
2 . T h e e x i s t i n g C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y O r d e r i s m o r e t h a n a d e q u a t e to accommodate any
discovery materials to be produced by S M U G .
In addition to failing to establish any new, compelling need for an AEO restriction, SMUG has also failed to
show that there is no other effective alternative to the restriction.
Ragland , 2013 WL 3776495 at *2. Here, there plainly is such an alternative the existing Confidentiality
Order, which already prohibits disclosure of confidential information to others outside of this litigation who
have no legitimate need for such information. Livelys sworn, unrebutted declarations demonstrate that he
has strictly complied with the Confidentiality Order, and will continue to do so with respect to SMUGs
ostensibly more sensitive information. (Lively Decl., 2-4; Lively Decl. 90-1, 6-8.) SMUG has not, and
cannot, counter Livelys declarations.
6
C. SMUGs proposed AEO restriction would unfairly prejudice Lively.
p65
29-5-2015
66
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Here, SMUG seeks a drastic AEO restriction that would work extreme prejudice on Lively, who is
uniquely positioned to assist in his defense. Lively is an attorney (although his California license is on
inactive status, because of his residence in Massachusetts), and has been actively involved in assisting his
counsel in the defense of this suit. (Lively Decl., 2; Lively Decl.
6
To be sure, SMUG has itself violated the existing Confidentiality Order by withholding confidential material
outright, instead of producing it with the Confidential designation required by the order. (Conf. Ord.
11(a) ([N]o party may withhold materials . . . based solely on a claim that the material sought is Confidential
Discovery Material.) Among the nearly 25,000 pages of documents produced by SMUG (neither organized
to correspond to the categories requested nor as kept in the usual course of business), numerous pages
likely in the hundreds show redactions supposedly based on confidentiality. Counsel for the parties are
conferring in an effort to resolve SMUGs deficient production.
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 12 of 1513 90-1, 8, 10.). Lively is uniquely
aware of his speech and conduct in Uganda, his interaction with various individuals in the context of the
allegations raised by SMUG (some of whom may be shown in the video of the workshop allegedly raided
in 2012), and many of the facts and circumstances surrounding the events giving rise to this action. As such,
Livelys counsel none of whom have been to Uganda must rely heavily on him for this knowledge.
Lively plans to continue to play an integral part in his own defense, by assisting with the rebuttal of the
claims asserted by Plaintiff and its witnesses. (Lively Decl., 2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 10.)
But SMUGs proposed attorneys eyes only restriction would effectively shut Lively out of his own
defense,
by keeping him in the dark about the identity of the secret SMUG members and constituents who are
accusing him, and hiding the extent of damages SMUG intends to recover from him. For example, SMUG
alleges in its Amended Complaint that it suffered harm from having to retain security personnel and take
additional security measures, and prays for compensatory damages, as well as punitive and exemplary
damages, as a result of the alleged harm. (Dkt. No. 27, 223-24, at 59.) Thus, the nature and scope of
security measures implemented by SMUG are critically relevant to its damages claim (which SMUG has yet
to quantify), and therefore critically important to Livelys defense.
7
Lively has a right to test, verify, and rebut each SMUG claim that any particular security measure was taken
in response to his conduct. Given that SMUG has made the extent of its security response a damages issue,
SMUGs self -serving statement that Lively does not himself need to know the details of how SMUG, its
member organizations and the health
7
Nor can the relatively small number of documents SMUG (currently) seeks to designate AEO,
approximately 220, justify the drastic restriction. Given the critical relevance of the documents demonstrated
herein, restricting Lively from even one page is not justified.
clinic are working to protect themselves from the persecution defies logic. (Dkt. No. 150 at 10-11.)
Also illogical is SMUGs stance that the danger of Lively, an individual, seeing SMUGs particularly
sensitive information is greater than multiple representatives of foreign governments having access to the
same information. (Dkt. No. 150 at 6, 11.) SMUG does not even attempt to explain how widespread
distribution of its particularly sensitive information to multiple, presumably sovereign foreign governments
is more secure than disclosure to Lively who is subject to this Courts Confidentiality Order (and has strictly
complied therewith).
CONCLUSION
At the end of the day, the Court has already and correctly denied the drastic relief prayed for by SMUG. The
existing Confidentiality Order has proven more than adequate to protect the confidentiality of thousands upon
thousands of documents produced thus far in discovery. SMUG does not and cannot allege that Lively has
disregarded the strict confidentiality obligations imposed by the Court, nor that Lively intends to disregard
them in the future. The only evidence before the Court is to the contrary. As such, there is no good reason to
impose now the shackles and trammels that this Court has previously considered and rightfully rejected.
For these reasons, the Court should deny SMUGs motion.
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 14 of 1515 Respectfully submitted, Philip D.
Moran (MA Bar # 353920)
265 Essex Street, Suite 202
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: (978) 745-6085
Fax: (978) 741-2572
p66
29-5-2015
67
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Email: philipmoranesq@aol.com s/ Roger K. Gannam Mathew D. Staver Admitted Pro Hac Vice Horatio G.
Mihet Admitted Pro Hac Vice Roger K. Gannam Admitted Pro Hac Vice LIBERTY COUNSEL P.O. Box
540774 Orlando, FL 32854-0774 800-671-1776 Telephone 407-875-0770 Facsimile court@lc.org Attorneys
for Defendant Scott Lively
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Court on
May 22, 2015. Service will be effectuated by the Courts electronic notification system upon all counsel or
parties of record. s/ Roger K. Gannam________________ Roger K. Gannam Attorney for Defendant Scott
Lively
PONSOR : SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as : president of Abiding Truth Ministries, : : Defendant. :
DECLARATION OF SCOTT LIVELY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND PROTECTIVE
ORDER
I, SCOTT LIVELY, declare under oath as follows: 1)
I am over the age of 18 years, and have personal knowledge of the matters below. The statements made in
this Declaration are true and correct, and if called upon to testify to them I would and could do so
competently. 2)
All averments in the Declaration of Scott Lively in Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order filed
December 9, 2013 (Dkt. No. 90-1) were true when I first made them, remain true today, and are incorporated
into this Declaration, in their entirety, as if fully set forth herein. 3)
I have strictly complied with the Order Regarding Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Material entered
March 3, 2014 (Dkt. No. 106) (the Confidentiality Order). Specifically, I have not disclosed any
Confidential Discovery Material (as defined in the Confidentiality Order) produced by SMUG to any person
in Uganda or otherwise in violation of the Confidentiality Order.
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159-1 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : 3:12CV-30051-MAP : v. : JUDGE MICHAEL A. PONSOR : SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as :
MAGISTRATE JUDGE NEIMAN president of Abiding Truth Ministries, : : Defendant. :
DECLARATION OF SCOTT LIVELY IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
competently. 2)
45
I have never outed a homosexual, lesbian or transgender person by publicly revealing their sexuality or
sexual preferences, or whereabouts, without their consent. 3)
50
55
60
I have never assisted anyone to out a homosexual, lesbian or transgender person by publicly revealing their
sexuality or sexual preferences, or whereabouts, without their consent. 4)
I have never encouraged or condoned the outing of any homosexual, lesbian or transgender person by
publicly revealing their sexuality or sexual preferences, or whereabouts, without their consent. On the
contrary, I have unequivocally condemned such
EXHIBIT B
2 practices. For example, when a Ugandan tabloid published the names of individuals allegedly involved in
homosexuality under a banner that said Hang Them, I condemned that action and I praised the Ugandan
courts for punishing it. I wrote publicly: The Ugandan newspaper which "outed" the Ugandan homosexual
p67
29-5-2015
68
activists under a banner saying "Hang Them," clearly WAS an incitement to violence and I join the rest of the
civilized world in condemning it. The Ugandan court was right in declaring it illegal.
Dr. Lively Comments on Uganda Murder, Defend the Family International, January 28, 2011 (available at
http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/newsarchives.php?id=5842336). 5)
5
I have no intention to publicly disclose the identity, sexuality, sexual preferences or practices, whereabouts or
associational activities of any homosexual, lesbian or transgender person in Uganda (or anywhere else for
that matter). 6)
10
15
20
25
30
If this Court were to enter a Protective Order prohibiting the public disclosure of the identity, sexuality,
transgender person in Uganda, I would strictly comply with it, for two reasons. 7)
First, as stated above, I have no interest or intention in making such disclosures, and I believe them to be
wrong. 8)
Second, as an attorney (licensed by the State of California, but currently on inactive status due to may
residence in Massachusetts), I have the utmost respect for the law and court orders. I also understand that
violating a court order is a crime that carries serious consequences and penalties. During the time I practiced
law in California, I was routinely entrusted with confidential information about clients and others, and I have
never even been
3 accused, much less adjudicated guilty, of breaching confidentiality, making improper disclosures or
disregarding court orders. 9)
My association and communications with individuals in Uganda, including Stephen Langa, Martin Ssempa
and James Buturo, has always been and remains strictly for lawful and constitutionally-protected purposes,
that is, to lawfully speak and to engage in public and political advocacy on civil and political matters of
public importance. I have no knowledge that these individuals have ever themselves outed, or assisted
others to out, any homosexual, lesbian or transgender person by publicly revealing their sexuality or sexual
preferences, or whereabouts, without their consent. I have no intention or interest in ever engaging in such
activity with these or any other individuals. I would not disclose any information protected by court order to
these individuals, or to anyone else who is not authorized to receive such information. 10)
35
40
45
50
55
Throughout this litigation, I have been actively involved in assisting my attorneys as they defend me against
Plaintiffs baseless and frivolous allegations. I intend to continue to play an integral part in my own defense,
until Plaintiffs charges are exposed for the sham that they are, and the lawsuit is dismissed. Knowing my
accusers and the witnesses gathered by Plaintiff against me, and being able to test, verify and rebut their
allegations, is a critical aspect of my defense that requires my participation, without which neither I nor my
attorneys can effectively defend this suit.
877-479-2484U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT www.uslegalsupport.com

[Page 1]UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSSPRINGFIELD
DIVISION-----------------------------------xSEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. against- 3-12-CV-30061-MAPSCOTT LIVELY, Defendant.-----------------------------------x May 12,
2015 10:10 a.m.Deposition of CALEB BRUNDIDGE, taken byPlaintiff, pursuant to Notice, at theoffices of
Dorsey & Whitnety, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York, before JoelleFalsetta, a certified Shorthand
Reporterand Notary Public within and for the Stateof New York.
EXHIBIT C
60
p68
29-5-2015
69
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
[Page 2]
12
A P P E A R A N C E S:
345
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 51 West 52nd Street
7
New York, New York ^ ZIP ^
8
BY: VIKRAM KUMAR, ESQ. KALEB MCMEELY, ESQ
910
LIBERTY COUNSEL Attorneys for Defendant
11
P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, Florida 540774
12
BY: HORATIO G. MIHET ESQ.
13
VP of LegaL Affairs and Chief Litigation C o u n s e l
141516
JOHN P. MARGAND
17
Attorneys for witness6 7 0 w h i t e p l a i n s
1819
ALSO PRESENT:
20
juan Torres, Videographer
21
P a m S p e e s , Azure Wheeler
22232425

[Page 109]
1
CALEB BRUNDIDGE
2
there was nothing I could really do to
3
help because I am over here and they
4
are over there. And yes, so it was
5
kind of just sympathizing with them
6
because there was nothing I could do to
7
help.
8
Q. Do you remember how many
9
additional communications you may have
10
had with that person?
11
A. That was it.
12
Q. You responded back?
13
p69
29-5-2015
70
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
A. Yes.
14
Q. Did he ever -- did he or she
15
ever respond back to you?
16
A. Not to my -17
Q. Recollection?
18
A. -- recollection.
19
Q. Okay.
20
During your visit to Uganda, did
21
you at any time advocate violence
22
against homosexuals?
23
A. No.
24
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
25
A. No.

[Page 110]
1
CALEB BRUNDIDGE
2
Q. During your time in Uganda,
3
or at any time other time, did you
4
advocate that the death penalty be
5
imposed for homosexual behavior or
6
7
A. No.
8
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
9
A. Not to my knowledge.
10
Q. Did you ever advocate in
11
Uganda that life sentences be imposed
12
against homosexuals or homosexual
13
behavior?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
p70
29-5-2015
71
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
16
17
18
Uganda that the media publish the names
19
and/or pictures and/or addresses of
20
homosexuals?
21
A. Did I?
22
Q. Yes.
23
A. No.
24
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
25

[Page 111]
1
CALEB BRUNDIDGE
2
3
Uganda that landlords should evict
4
tenants who might be homosexuals or who
5
might engage in homosexual behavior?
6
A. No.
7
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
8
A. Not to my kno wledge.
9
10
Uganda that police should raid either
11
the homes or the meetings of
12
homosexuals?
13
A. No.
14
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
15
16
17
Uganda that police should arrest
18
p71
29-5-2015
72
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
homosexuals or homosexual advocates?

19
A. No.
20
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
21
22
Q. These things that we talked
23
about just now, the violence, the death
24
penalty, life sentences, forced
25
outings, evictions, police arrests and

[Page 112]
1
CALEB BRUNDIDGE
2
police brutality, did you hear any of
3
those things discussed while you were
4
in Uganda?
5
A. No.
6
MR. MIHET: Thank you,
7
Mr. Brundidge. Those are all the
8
questions that I had for you.
9
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
10
MR. KUMAR: We have a brief
11
redirect based on the questions
12
you just asked.
13
EXAMINATION BY MR. KUMAR:
14
Q. Mr. Brundidge I would like
15
to refer you back to the IHF summer
16
2009 newsletter?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. To page eight?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. And to the last sentence of
p72
29-5-2015
73
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
21
the second paragraph?
22
MR. MARGAND: Which
23
column?
24
MR. KUMAR: Until the left
25
column.
END QUOTE
https://www.scribd.com/doc/266828896/159-Def-Opp-to-Motion-to-Amend-pdf
QUOTE
159 - Def Opp to Motion to Amend.pdf
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
PONSOR : SCOTT LIVELY, : MAGISTRATE JUDGE : KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON Defendant. :
DEFENDANT SCOTT LIVELYS
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDER REGARDING
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY MATERIAL
Defendant, Scott Lively (Lively), pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(2), files this memorandum in opposition to
the Motion to Amend the Order Regarding Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Material (Dkt. No. 149) filed
by Plaintiff, Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). For the reasons stated herein, the motion should be
denied.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
SMUGs motion asks the Court to change its mind on an issue the Court already decided against SMUG in
the Courts Order Regarding Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Material (Dkt. No. 106) (the
Confidentiality Order). The sole issue for the Courts decision is whether to create a new category of
Confidential Discovery Material (as defined in the Confidentiality Order) designated Attorneys Eyes Only
(or AEO), which SMUG wants to prevent Lively from
seeing.
But there has been no material change in circumstances justifying the Courts departure from its prior ruling
against an AEO restriction. And, like before, SMUG fails to make a sufficient showing of compelling need to
justify blocking Livelys access to critical discovery, thereby profoundly hindering Livelys ability to
participate and assist his counsel in his own defense.
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 152 As before, SMUG offers no evidence
to justify an AEO restriction, but is travelling on the mere allegations of wrongdoing by Lively in its
Complaint, which SMUG has made little attempt to prove in the more than three years since its filing. To be
sure, SMUG does not care whether it ever proves its allegations against Lively. In March of this year, Frank
Mugisha, SMUG's Executive Director, boasted to an American publication, Our goal is not actually about the
outcome of the case; our goal is the advocacy weve been able to do around the case.
1 In other words, the process is the punishment. In light of this admission that proving its case is not the goal,
every SMUG claim of injury caused by Lively is suspect; every security measure SMUG claims to have
taken in response to Lively's alleged conduct demands scrutiny; and the person on whose name SMUG is
p73
29-5-2015
74
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
flippantly trading for influence, Scott Lively, has the right to see and evaluate all evidence SMUG may use to
further its cause at Livelys expense. It is disingenuous for SMUG to feign the desire for secrecy and
obscurity behind an AEO restriction, while promoting internationally its political human rights case
against Lively for the admitted purpose of increasing SMUG's profile.
SMUGs failure to meet the standards for an AEO restriction, shown below, and admitted ulterior motives,
shown above, require denial of SMUGs motion to amend the existing Confidentiality Order. Any other
outcome would further hamstring Livelys ability to rebut SMUGs baseless claims.
1
James McDonald, 3 Questions on The Battle for Uganda: Frank Mugisha brings the fight against oppression
to America (May 11, 2015 6:00 AM), http://www.advocate.com/ world/2015/05/11/3-questions-battleuganda.
THE EXISTING CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
SMUGs latest entreatment for an AEO restriction that would eject Lively from his own defense is nothing
new. The existing Confidentiality Order (Dkt. No. 106) represents the Courts resolution of a contentious and
thoroughly briefed dispute regarding the appropriate scope of confidentiality protections for discovery
materials in this case.
2
Importantly, Lively did not object to the entry of an appropriate protective order shielding certain genuinely
confidential information from disclosure. (Dkt. No. 90 at 1.) Lively by no means, however, conceded that the
actual situation in Uganda bore any resemblance to the gross exaggerations and misrepresentations set forth
in SMUGs motion for protective order, or in the Amended Complaint, and unequivocally denied (and
denies) that he has engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever. ( Id.) Nevertheless, Lively was amenable to entry
of a protective order to be used in those rare instances where the evidence establishes a reasonable probability
that public disclosure may cause legitimate harm. ( Id.) The proposed protective order submitted by SMUG,
however, went much too far, and would have profoundly prejudiced Livelys ability to assist in his own
defense, and the ability of his counsel to effectively defend him. ( Id.) Included in SMUGs proposed
protective order was an attorneys eyes only designation for certain limited discovery, which would have
prevented 2
The filings reflecting the disputed issues are Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 85); Plaintiffs
Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 86); Defendant Scott Livelys
Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 90); Electronic Order denying without
prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (Neiman, M.J.) (Dkt. No. 93); Joint Submission Regarding
Proposed Protective Order (Dkt. No. 96); Defendant Scott Livelys Response to the Parties Joint
Submission Regarding Protective Order (Dkt. No. 98); Plaintiffs Proposed Reply to Defedants Response to
the Parties Joint Submission Regarding Protective Order (Dkt. No. 99-1) (allowed by Dkt. No. 100); and
Memorandum and Order with Regard to the Parties Countervailing Submissions Regarding A Proposed
Protective Order (Dkt. No. 102).
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 154 Lively from considering and
discussing with his own counsel admittedly relevant evidence.
3
But, as determined by the Court, SMUG provided insufficient justification for imposing such handicaps on
Livelys defense.
In the Courts Electronic Order initially denying SMUGs motion for protective order (Dkt. No. 93), Judge
Neiman held, the court is not inclined to adopt the attorney's eyes only provision . . . for many of the reasons
raised by Defendant in his opposition; given that Defendant, as the sole defendant in this action and as uniquely
positioned to assist in his defense with regard to the events at issue, his counsel will no doubt need to communicate with him
without the strictures proposed by Plaintiff . (Emphasis added.) In the Courts subsequent Memorandum and Order
addressing additional issues involving the scope of confidentiality protection sought by SMUG (Dkt. No.
102), Judge Neiman reiterated that he was not inclined to accept an attorneys eyes-only provision given that
Defendants counsel would no doubt need to communicate with him as a sole defendant uniquely positioned
to assist in his defense, and stated he was also concerned about shackling Defendants investigation of facts and
witnesses in Uganda. (Dkt. No. 102 at 3 (emphasis added).) Judge Neiman further concluded that Lively, to
mount his defense, does need to investigate highly sensitive matters without undue trammels. ( Id. (emphasis
added).) Thus, the Court made clear its antipathy towards AEO restrictions in this case, (Dkt. No. 93; Dkt.
No. 102 at 3), and ultimately entered the existing Confidentiality Order with no AEO restriction. While the
Court did not foreclose completely the possibility of a future AEO restriction upon a proper application, the
Court conditioned any such restriction on a showing of particularized and compelling need. (Conf. Order,
17.) This high bar set by the Court reflects
3
p74
29-5-2015
75
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
The AEO restriction in SMUGs first proposed protective order was for materials designated HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL, disclosure of which was limited to counsel and specified non-party persons. (Dkt. No.
86-3, 8.)
Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 4 of 155 the near universal aversion of courts
to AEO restrictions except in very limited contexts not applicable here. SMUGs current motion to amend the
Confidentiality Order fails to satisfy this high standard.
To be sure, the Court did rule in SMUGs favor on numerous other contested issues in the fashioning of the
Confidentiality Order, which Lively respectfully contends has already adversely impacted his ability to test
and rebut SMUGs outrageous claims. (See Defendant Scott Livelys Objection to Protective Order, Dkt. No.
118.) To the extent the Courts rejection of an AEO provision reflected an attempt to compromise and strike
a balance between the parties competing interests, SMUG now wishes to deprive Lively even of that hard
fought concession, while retaining all of the other, numerous benefits it obtained. The unfairness of SMUGs
requested relief is evident.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
I.
SMUGS MOTION TO AMEND THE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER SHOULD BE DENIED
BECAUSE SMUG AGAIN FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE DRASTIC ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
RESTRICTION
EXCLUDING LIVELY FROM HIS OWN DEFENSE.
A. Imposing an AEO restriction on relevant discovery is a drastic measure which is highly disfavored.
The Courts preclusion of any AEO restriction except upon a showing of particularized and compelling
need (Conf. Order,
17) reflects the highly disfavored nature of such restrictions.
The common law presumes a right of public access to judicial records. Siedle v. Putnam Investments,
Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 1998). Although this right is not absolute, and courts may fashion protective
orders prohibiting public disclosure in limited circumstances, id . at 9-10, attorneys eyes only provisions
are the most restrictive possible protective order, and pose a significant handicap on the restricted litigant
by making it difficult, and perhaps impossible, for an attorney to counsel a client . . . on the basis of
information kept secret from the client. Arvco Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15
Page 5 of 15
6
Container Corp. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 1:08-CV-548, 2009 WL 311125, *5-6 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2009)
(denying request for attorneys eyes only protection). As such, an attorneys eyes only
restriction is highly disfavored because, it is a drastic remedy given its impact on the party entitled to the
information. For one thing, it limits the ability of the receiving party to view the relevant evidence, fully
discuss it with counsel, and make intelligent litigation decisions. Also, in many cases, it limits the ability of a
party to provide needed assistance to counsel.
Ragland v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of N. Dakota, 1:12-CV-080, 2013 WL 3776495 , *1-2 (D.N.D. June 25,
2013) (emphasis added) (collecting cases where restriction was denied). For this reason, attorneys eyes
only restrictions will only be justified in those rare instances where, unlike here, there is no other
effective alternative. Id . at *2 (denying attorneys eyes only restriction).
B. SMUGs motion is wholly insufficient to justify the drastic and highly disfavored AEO restriction.
1. SMUG fails to put forth evidence of a compelling need for a n A E O
restriction.
SMUGs purported justifications for imposing an AEO restriction on documents relevant to Livelys defense
are protecting the safety of SMUGs constituents and preventing Livelys campaign of discrimination and
persecution. (Dkt. No. 150 at 8-9.) SMUG has presented absolutely no evidence that such a drastic measure
is warranted here. The only evidence before this Court is that Lively has never outed a homosexual, lesbian
or transgender person by publicly revealing their sexuality or sexual preferences or whereabouts without their
consent. (Declaration of Scott Lively in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Protective Order (Lively
Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A), 2; Declaration of Scott Lively in Response to Plaintiffs Motion
for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 90 - 1, Lively Declaration 90-1, attached hereto as Exhibit B), 2.)
Lively has never assisted anyone in perpetrating such outings, nor has he encouraged or condoned such
outings. (Lively Decl.,
2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 3-4). On the Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 6 of 157
contrary, Lively has unequivocally condemned others in Uganda who have engaged in such outings, and
has praised the Ugandan courts for punishing them.
(Lively Decl., 2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 4.) Lively has no intention to publicly disclose the identity, sexuality,
p75
29-5-2015
76
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
transgender person in Uganda or anywhere else. (Lively Decl., 2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 5.) SMUG has failed
to rebut this evidence with
anything that contradicts it. Notably, SMUGs motion comes after more than one year and a half of extensive,
full-fledged discovery in which literally tens of thousands of documents have been exchanged by the parties.
Still, the only justification that SMUG can muster now for excluding Lively from his own defense is
SMUGs unproven allegations
which provide a background to the instant dispute over a protective order. (Dkt. No. 150 at 4 (quoting
Dkt. No. 102 at 2).) These background allegations include a coordinated and sustained campaign [by an
unnamed person] to target and demonize the LGBTI community in Uganda, a leaked document [by an
unnamed person] that discussed the strategies of Plaintiff, and Livelys mere alleged association with four
Ugandan individuals who allegedly conspired to out LGBTI advocates.
(Dkt. No. 150 at 4-5.) However, SMUG does not present a shred of evidence that Lively was himself
involved in such alleged conduct, or that he encouraged it, or that he even knew about it. There is nothing in
SMUGs motion that even
comes close to rebutting Livelys sworn declarations that he has, in fact, condemned such conduct and that
his association with individuals in Uganda, including Stephen Langa, Martin Ssempa and James Buturo, has
always been and remains strictly for lawful and constitutionally-protected Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP
Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 7 of 158 purposes, that is, to lawfully speak and to engage in public
and political advocacy on civil and
political matters of public importance. (Lively Decl., 2; Lively Decl. 90-1, 9.)
4
Punishing Lively for his lawful association with other individuals without any, much less strict, proof that he
was himself responsible for any unlawful conduct allegedly committed by those individuals, would be an
unconstitutional violation of Livelys First Amendment rights.
See N. A. A. C. P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 920 (1982) (Civil liability may not be imposed
merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence).
SMUG has brought forth no evidence that Lively has personally agreed to employ the illegal means
contemplated by his associates in this case the alleged forced outing of homosexuals which is the
minimum threshold requirement for punishing speech and association within the shadow of the First
Amendment. United States v. Spock , 416 F.2d 165, 172, 176 (1st Cir. 1969). Indeed, SMUG has not even
alleged that Lively has personally agreed to employ the forced outing of homosexuals, much less proven it.
Yet SMUG invites the Court to impose a debilitating litigation handicap upon Lively, based solely upon his
lawful association with others. This is nothing short of an invitation to violate the associational rights of a
United
4
In the nearly three years since filing the Amended Complaint, the only evidence adduced by SMUG relevant
to what Lively actually did in Uganda disproves SMUGs allegations. On May 12, 2105, SMUG took the
deposition of Caleb Brundidge, who spoke along with Lively at the March 2009 Seminar on Exposing the
Homosexual Agenda in Uganda. (Dkt. No. 27,
36; Transcript of Deposition of Caleb Brundidge on May 12, 2015 (Brundidge Deposition, excerpts of
which are attached hereto as Exhibit C.) (The attached excerpts are from the preliminary
rough copy of the Brundidge Deposition transcript provided to Livelys counsel by SMUGs counsel; the
parties await the final transcript.) Brundidge testified that Lively did not advocate violence against
homosexuals, that the death penalty be imposed for homosexual behavior or against homosexuals, that
life sentences be imposed against homosexuals, that the media publish the names and/or pictures and/or
addresses of homosexuals, that landlords should evict . . . homosexuals, that police should raid either
the homes or the meetings of homosexuals, or that police should arrest homosexuals or homosexual
advocates.
(Brundidge Dep. at 109:20-111:21.) Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 8 of 15
9 States citizen, even while invoking those very same rights on behalf of a foreigner and stranger to the U.S.
Constitution and U.S. courts.
SMUGs evidentiary failures are fatal to its request for an attorneys eyes only litigation burden. See, e.g.
,
Ragland
, 2013 WL 3776495 at *2 (attorneys eyes only provision should not be authorized simply because one of
the parties would prefer that certain information not be disclosed to an opposing party); Arvco Container
Corp., 2009 WL 311125 at * 8 (A litigant's
vague feeling of discomfort or its desire to hobble its opponent in litigation do not establish good cause);
Dorchen/Martin Assoc., Inc. v. Brook of Cheboygan, 11-10561, 2012 WL 1936415, *1 (E.D. Mich. May 29,
2012) (Defendants submit good cause exists but they make no specific allegations, let alone demonstrations
p76
29-5-2015
77
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
of fact, indicating why good cause exists to impose the most restrictive order regarding the requested
information) (denying attorneys eyes only restriction); EQ Oklahoma, Inc. v. A Clean Env't Co., 11-CV510-GKF-PJC, 2012 WL 5429869, *1 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 7, 2012) (ACE set forth various factual assertions
in opposition to EQ's proposed order, but provided no evidentiary support to this Court) (denying attorneys
eyes only restriction) (emphasis in original). Moreover, SMUG has presented
no authority for its pro position that attorneys eyes only provisions are even suitable outside of the trade
secrets context, where they have been traditionally employed. See, e.g. , Ragland , 2013 WL 3776495 at *1
(limiting disclosure on an attorneys' eyes only basis is recognized as an appropriate method of protecting
information in
very limited situations, e.g., cases involving trade secrets) (emphasis added); Multi-Core, Inc. v. S. Water Treatment
Co.
, 139 F.R.D. 262 (D. Mass. 1991) (cited by SMUG) (ordering disclosure of defendants secret formula to only
plaintiffs counsel and experts).
It is one thing to preclude a litigant from knowing the secret formula of his competitors product, and another
thing entirely to Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 9 of 1510 preclude that
litigant from even knowing who is suing him, who is pointing the finger at him, and what their damages
claims are, and to prevent him from assisting in his own defense against them. SMUG has presented no case
in which this type of litigation handicap has ever been imposed. Indeed, SMUG unconvincingly cites two
other commercial trade secret cases to attempt to justify an AEO restriction in this case, Voice Domain
Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. CIV.A. 13-40138-TSH, 2014 WL 5106413 (D. Mass. 2014); WestsideMarrero Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., Inc., No. CIV. A. 97-3012, 1998 WL 186728 (E.D. La. 1998).
Both, of course, are distinguishable. In Voice Domain Technologies and Westside-Marrero Jeep Eagle, a
finding of risk of subconscious or inadvertent disclosure was necessitated by the indisputable position of the
parties seeking disclosure as competitors of the parties seeking the restriction. See 2014 WL 5106413 at *5;
1998 WL 186728 at *2. In neither, however, was the requesting partys position as a competitor the ultimate
issue in the case. By contrast, in the instant case, SMUGs argument that Livelys mere possession of
confidential information creates a risk of disclosure endangering SMUG presumes the ultimate fact in the
case on which SMUG bears the burden of proof at trial that Lively is persecuting SMUG. Lively
unequivocally denies this ultimate fact of persecution, and SMUG has yet to even attempt to prove it. It
would be improper and unfair for this Court to presume that SMUG has already prevailed on its claims,
which the Court must do to accept SMUGs arguments, with the result being a substantial restriction on
Livelys ability to participate in his own defense against those very claims. The only non-commercial case
cited by SMUG, In re The City of New York , 607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir. 2010), strays even farther from relevance
to the instant dispute. In City of New York , the court held that the confidential intelligence files of the New
York City Police Department were Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 159 Filed 05/22/15 Page 10 of 1511
protected from any disclosure by the law enforcement privilege, which shifted the burden to the plaintiffs
seeking disclosure to show a compelling need for the files. 607 F.3d at 929. Furthermore, the primary interest
at stake in restricting disclosure was the safety of not only NYPD officers, but also the entire general public
of New York City. Id. at 936. In the instant case, SMUG can point to no similarly applicable privilege
shifting the burden to Lively to justify disclosure, nor can SMUG claim that it is seeking to protect the safety
of the entire general public of Uganda (or any of its cities). Having no evidence to prop up its motion, SMUG
turns to bald innuendo.
5
In between recitations of its unproved allegations against Lively of a coordinated and sustained campaign to
target and demonize the LGBTI community in Uganda,
and more unproved allegations of Livelys work with Ugandan -based co-conspirators, SMUG
indelicately interposes an account of a confidential document leaked in Uganda that discussed the
strategies of Plaintiff . . . .
(Dkt. No. 150 at 4-5.) But SMUG fails, as usual, to cite a single fact connecting Lively to the leak. The
alleged leak supposedly took place in 2012. (Dkt. No. 150 at 4-5.) Since this was well before discovery in
this case began, and before SMUG produced any documents to Lively, Lively could not possibly have been
the source of the alleged leak. Tellingly, SMUG does not
5
This is not the first time SMUG has turned to innuendo in the absence of evidence. For example, in its
original Complaint, SMUG alleged that David Kato, SMUGs Advocacy Officer, was bludgeoned to death
in his home, four months after he was outed by a tabloid newspaper under the headline, HANG
THEM, thereby implying that Kato was killed by a homophobe presumably enraged by Livelys speeches
and writings. (Dkt. No. 1, 8, 126
-130.) As reported in leading homosexual publications and respected international media, however, Kato was
killed not by an enraged homophobe but by a homosexual prostitute whom Kato hired for sexual services and
refused to pay. (Dkt. No. 22 at 5 & n.5, 6; Dkt. No. 33 at 7-8 & nn.6-7.) SMUG ignored these rebuttals
p77
29-5-2015
78
10
15
20
outright, and continued to make the same insinuations in its Amended Complaint, albeit in a somewhat more
nuanced fashion. (Dkt. No. 5, 10, 219-222.)
12 expressly blame Lively for the alleged leak, and is content to simply allege that the leak occurred, hoping
that innuendo will adequately fill the place of proof. Moreover, Lively has provided his sworn declarations of
strict compliance with the existing Confidentiality Order, which SMUG cannot refute. (Lively Decl., 2, 3;
Lively Decl. 90-1, 6-8.)
2 . T h e e x i s t i n g C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y O r d e r i s m o r e t h a n a d e q u a t e to accommodate any
discovery materials to be produced by S M U G .
In addition to failing to establish any new, compelling need for an AEO restriction, SMUG
has also failed to show that there is no other effective alternative to
the restriction.
Ragland
, 2013 WL 3776495 at *2. Here, there plainly is such an alternative
the existing Confidentiality Order, which already prohibits disclosure of confidential information to others
outside of this litigation who have no legitimate need for such info
rmation. Livelys sworn, unrebutted
declarations demonstrate that he has strictly complied with the Confidentiality Order, and will continue to do
so with respect to
SMUGs ostensibly more sensitive information
. (Lively Decl., 2-4; Lively Decl. 90-1, 6-8.) SMUG has
not, and cannot, counter Livelys declarations.
6
25
C.
SMUGs proposed AEO restriction would unfairly prejudice Lively.
30
35
40
45
Here, SMUG seeks a drastic

AEO restriction that would work extreme prejudice on Lively, who is uniquely positioned to assist in his
defense. Lively is an attorney (although his California license is on inactive status, because of his residence in
Massachusetts),
and has been actively involved in assisting his counsel in the defense of this suit. (Lively Decl., 2; Lively
Decl.
6
To be sure, SMUG has itself violated the existing Confidentiality Order by withholding confidential material
outright, instead of producing it
with the Confidential designation required by the order. (Conf. Ord. 11(a) ([N]o party may withhold
materials . . . based solely on a claim that the material sought is Confidential Discovery Material.) Among
the nearly 25,000 page
s of documents produced by SMUG (neither organized to correspond to the categories requested nor as kept
in the usual course of business), numerous pages
likely in the hundreds
show redactions supposedly based on confidentiality. Counsel for the parties are conferring in an effort to
resolve
SMUGs deficient production.
50
55

13 90-1, 8, 10.). Lively is uniquely aware of his speech and conduct in Uganda, his interaction with
various individuals in the context of the allegations raised by SMUG (some of whom may be shown in the
video of the workshop allegedly
raided in 201
2), and many of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the events giving rise to this action. As such, Livelys counsel
none of whom have been to Uganda
p78
29-5-2015
79
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
must rely heavily on him for this knowledge. Lively plans to continue to play an integral part in his own
defense, by assisting with the rebuttal of the claims asserted by Plaintiff and its witnesses. (Lively Decl., 2;
Lively Decl. 90-1, 10.)
But SMUGs proposed attorneys eyes only restriction would effectively shut Lively out of his own
defense,
by keeping him in the dark about the identity of the secret SMUG members and constituents who are
accusing him, and hiding the extent of damages SMUG intends to recover from him. For example, SMUG
alleges in its Amended Complaint that it suffered harm from having to retain security personnel and take
additional security measures, and prays for compensatory damages, as well as punitive and exemplary
damages, as a result of the alleged harm. (Dkt. No. 27, 223-24, at 59.) Thus, the nature and scope of
security measures implemented by SMUG are critically relevant to its damages claim (which SMUG has yet
to quantify), and therefore critically
important to Livelys defense.
7
Lively has a right to test, verify, and rebut each SMUG claim that any particular security measure was taken
in response to his conduct. Given that SMUG has made
the extent of its security response a damages issue, SMUGs self
-serving statement that
Lively does not himself need to know the details of

how
SMUG, its member organizations and the health
7
Nor can the relatively small number of documents SMUG (currently) seeks to designate AEO,
approximately 220, justify the drastic restriction. Given the critical relevance of the documents demonstrated
herein, restricting Lively from even one page is not justified.
14
clinic are working to protect themselves from the persecution defies logic. (Dkt. No. 150 at 10
-11.)
Also illogical is SMUGs stance that the danger of Lively, an individual, seeing SMUGs particularly
sensitive informatio
n is greater than multiple
representatives of
foreign governments
having access to the same information. (Dkt. No. 150 at 6, 11.) SMUG does not
even attempt to explain how widespread distribution of its particularly sensitive information to
multiple, presumably sovereign foreign governments is more secure than disclosure to Lively who
is subject to this Courts Confidentiality Order (and h
as strictly complied therewith).
CONCLUSION
At the end of the day, the Court has already and correctly denied the drastic relief prayed for by SMUG. The
existing Confidentiality Order has proven more than adequate to protect the confidentiality of thousands upon
thousands of documents produced thus far in discovery. SMUG does not and cannot allege that Lively has
disregarded the strict confidentiality obligations imposed by the Court, nor that Lively intends to disregard
them in the future. The only evidence
before the Court is to the contrary. As such, there is no good reason to impose now the shackles and
trammels that this Court has previously considered and rightfully rejected.
For these reasons, the
Court should deny SMUGs motion
.
15 Respectfully submitted, Philip D. Moran (MA Bar # 353920)
55
265 Essex Street, Suite 202
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
60
Tel: (978) 745-6085

p79
29-5-2015
80
Fax: (978) 741-2572
10
15
20
Email: philipmoranesq@aol.com s/ Roger K. Gannam Mathew D. Staver Admitted Pro Hac Vice Horatio G.
Mihet Admitted Pro Hac Vice Roger K. Gannam Admitted Pro Hac Vice LIBERTY COUNSEL P.O. Box
540774 Orlando, FL 32854-0774 800-671-1776 Telephone 407-875-0770 Facsimile court@lc.org Attorneys
for Defendant Scott Lively
May 22, 2015
. Service will be effectuated by the Courts electronic notification
system upon all counsel or parties of record. s/ Roger K. Gannam________________ Roger K. Gannam
Attorney for Defendant Scott Lively
PONSOR : SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as : president of Abiding Truth Ministries, : : Defendant. :
DECLARATION OF SCOTT LIVELY IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION
TO AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER
competently. 2)
25
All averments
in the Declaration of Scott Lively in Response to Plaintiffs
Motion for Protective Order filed December 9, 2013 (Dkt. No. 90-1) were true when I first made them,
remain true today, and are incorporated into this Declaration, in their entirety, as if fully set forth herein. 3)
30
35
40
45
I have strictly complied with the Order Regarding Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Material entered
March 3, 2014 (Dkt. No. 106)
(the Confidentiality Order)
. Specifically, I have not disclosed any Confidential Discovery Material (as defined in the Confidentiality
Order) produced by SMUG to any person in Uganda or otherwise in violation of the Confidentiality Order.
EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : 3:12CV-30051-MAP : v. : JUDGE MICHAEL A. PONSOR : SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as :
MAGISTRATE JUDGE NEIMAN president of Abiding Truth Ministries, : : Defendant. :
DECLARATION OF SCOTT LIVELY IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
competently. 2)
50
I have never outed a homosexual, lesbian or transgender person by publicly revealing their sexuality or
sexual preferences, or whereabouts, without their consent. 3)
55
60
I have never assisted anyone to out a homosexual, lesbian or transgender person by publicly revealing their
sexuality or sexual preferences, or whereabouts, without their consent. 4)
I have never encouraged or condoned the outing of any homosexual, lesbian or transgender person by
publicly revealing their sexuality or sexual preferences, or whereabouts, without their consent. On the
contrary, I have unequivocally condemned such
p80
29-5-2015
81
EXHIBIT B
2 practices. For example, when a Ugandan tabloid published the names of individuals allegedly involved in
homosexuality under a banner that said Hang Them, I condemned that action and I praised the Ugandan
courts for punishing it. I wrote publicly: The Ugandan newspaper which "outed" the Ugandan homosexual
activists under a banner saying "Hang Them," clearly WAS an incitement to violence and I join the rest of the
civilized world in condemning it. The Ugandan court was right in declaring it illegal.
Dr. Lively Comments on Uganda Murder
, Defend the Family International, January 28, 2011 (available at
http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/newsarchives.php?id=5842336). 5)
10
I have no intention to publicly disclose the identity, sexuality, sexual preferences or practices, whereabouts
or associational activities of any homosexual, lesbian or transgender person in Uganda (or anywhere else for
that matter). 6)
15
20
25
30
35
If this Court were to enter a Protective Order prohibiting the public disclosure of the identity, sexuality,
transgender person in Uganda, I would strictly comply with it, for two reasons. 7)
First, as stated above, I have no interest or intention in making such disclosures, and I believe them to be
wrong. 8)
Second, as an attorney (licensed by the State of California, but currently on inactive status due to may
residence in Massachusetts), I have the utmost respect for the law and court orders. I also understand that
violating a court order is a crime that carries serious consequences and penalties. During the time I practiced
law in California, I was routinely entrusted with confidential information about clients and others, and I have
never even been
3 accused, much less adjudicated guilty, of breaching confidentiality, making improper disclosures or
disregarding court orders. 9)
My association and communications with individuals in Uganda, including Stephen Langa, Martin Ssempa
and James Buturo, has always been and remains strictly for lawful and constitutionally-protected purposes,
that is, to lawfully speak and to engage in public and political advocacy on civil and political matters of
public importance. I have no knowledge that these individuals have ever themselves outed, or assisted
others to out, any homosexual, lesbian or transgender person by publicly revealing their sexuality or sexual
preferences, or whereabouts, without their consent. I have no intention or interest in ever engaging in such
activity with these or any other individuals. I would not disclose any information protected by court order to
these individuals, or to anyone else who is not authorized to receive such information. 10)
40
45
50
55
60
Throughout this litigation, I have been actively involved in assisting my attorneys as they defend me against
Plaintiffs baseless and frivolous allegations. I intend to continue to play an integral part in my own defense,
until Plaintiffs charges are exposed for the sham that they are, and the lawsuit is dismissed. Knowing my
accusers and the witnesses gathered by Plaintiff against me, and being able to test, verify and rebut their
allegations, is a critical aspect of my defense that requires my participation, without which neither I nor my
attorneys can effectively defend this suit.
8
7
7
4
7
9
2
4
8
4
U
.
S
.
L
E
G
A
L
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
w
w
w
.
u
s
l
e
g
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
c
o
m
[Page 1]U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T D I S T R I C T O F
MASSACHUSETTSSPRINGFIELD DIVISION----------------------------------xSEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. -against- 3-12CV-30061-MAPSCOTT LIVELY, Defendant.----------------------------------x May 12, 2015 10:10 a.m.Deposition of CALEB BRUNDIDGE, taken
byPlaintiff, pursuant to Notice, at theoffices of Dorsey & Whitnety, 51 West
p81
29-5-2015
82
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
52nd Street, New York, New York, before JoelleFalsetta, a certified

Shorthand Reporterand Notary Public within and for the Stateof New York.
EXHIBIT C
8
7
7
4
7
9
2
4
8
4
U
.
S
.
L
E
G
A
L
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
w
w
w
.
u
s
l
e
g
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
c
o
m
[Page 2]
12
A P P E A R A N C E S:
345
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 51 West 52nd Street
7
New York, New York ^ ZIP ^
8
BY: VIKRAM KUMAR, ESQ. KALEB MCMEELY, ESQ
910
LIBERTY COUNSEL Attorneys for Defendant
11
P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, Florida 540774
12
BY: HORATIO G. MIHET ESQ.
13
VP of LegaL Affairs and Chief LitigationC o u n s e l
141516
JOHN P. MARGAND
17
Attorneys for witness6 7 0 w h i t e p l a i n s
1819
ALSO PRESENT:
20
juan Torres, Videographer
21
P a m S p e e s , Azure Wheeler
22232425
8
7
7
4
7
9
2
4
8
4
U
.
S
.
L
E
G
A
L
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
w
w
w
.
u
s
l
e
g
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
c
o
m
[Page 109]
1
CALEB BRUNDIDGE
2
there was nothing I could really do to
3
help because I am over here and they
4
are over there. And yes, so it was
5
kind of just sympathizing w ith them
6
because there was nothing I could do to
7
help.
8
Q. Do you reme mber how many
9
p82
29-5-2015
83
10
15
20
25
30
additional communications you may have

10
had with that person?
11
A. That was it.
12
Q. You responded back?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q. Did he ever -- did he or she
15
ever respond back to you?
16
A. Not to my -17
Q. Recollection?
18
A. -- recollection.
19
Q. Okay.
20
During your visit to Uganda, did
21
you at any time advocate violence
22
23
A. No.
24
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
25
A. No.
35
40
45
50
55
60
8
7
7
4
7
9
2
4
8
4
L
E
G
A
L
S
U
P
P
O
w
w
w
.
u
s
l
e
g
a
l
s
o
m
[Page 110]
1
CALEB BRUNDIDGE
2
Q. During your time in Uganda,
3
or at any time other time, did you
4
advocate that the death penalty be
5
imposed for homosexual behavior or
6
7
A. No.
8
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
9
A. Not to my know ledge.
10
11
U
R
u
.
T
p
p83
29-5-2015
84
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Uganda that life sentences be imposed

12
against homosexuals or homosexual
13
behavior?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
16
17
18
Uganda that the media publish the names
19
and/or pictures and/or addresses of
20
homosexuals?
21
A. Did I?
22
Q. Yes.
23
A. No.
24
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
25
8
7
7
4
7
9
2
4
8
4
L
E
G
A
L
S
U
P
P
O
w
w
w
.
u
s
l
e
g
a
l
s
o
m
[Page 111]
1
CALEB BRUNDIDGE
2
3
Uganda that landlords should evict
4
tenants w ho might be homosexuals or w ho
5
might engage in homosexual behavior?
6
A. No.
7
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
8
9
10
Uganda that police should raid either
11
the homes or the meetings of
12
U
R
u
.
T
p
p84
29-5-2015
85
10
15
20
25
homosexuals?
13
A. No.
14
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
15
16
17
Uganda that police should arrest
18
homosexuals or homosexual advocates?
19
A. No.
20
Q. Did Mr. Lively?
21
22
Q. These things that we talked
23
about just now, the violence, the death
24
penalty, life sentences, forced
25
outings, evictions, police arrests and
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
8
7
7
4
7
9
2
4
8
4
L
E
G
A
L
S
U
P
P
O
w
w
w
.
u
s
l
e
g
a
l
s
o
m
[Page 112]
1
CALEB BRUNDIDGE
2
police brutality, did you hear any of
3
those things discussed while you were
4
in Uganda?
5
A. No.
6
MR. MIHET: Thank you,
7
Mr. Brundidge. Those are all the
8
questions that I had for you.
9
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
10
MR. KUMAR: We have a brief
11
redirect based on the questions
12
you just asked.
13
U
R
u
.
T
p
p85
29-5-2015
86
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
EXAMINATION BY MR. KUMAR:

14
Q. Mr. Brundidge I would like
15
to refer you back to the IHF summer
16
2009 newsletter?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. To page eight?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. And to the last sentence of
21
the second paragraph?
22
MR. MARGAND: Which
23
column?
24
MR. KUMAR: Until the left
25
column.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
3:12-cv-30051 #152
Doc 152 - Beebe Declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Doc 152 - Beebe Declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, Plaintiff, v.SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of Abiding
Truth Ministries, Defendant.CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3-12-CV-30051-MAP DECLARATION OF DANIEL W. BEEBE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO
AMEND THE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY MATERIAL
I, DANIEL W. BEEBE, declare and state as follows: 1 . I a m a n a s s o c i a t e a t t h e l a w f i r m
D o r s e y & W h i t n e y L L P , c o u n s e l t o P l a i n t i f f Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG or
Plaintiff) in the above-captioned case and submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Amend
the Order Regarding Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Materials (Dkt. No. 106) (the Protective Order)
so that SMUG may designate a specific set of exceptionally sensitive documents for Attorneys Eyes Only
protection (the Motion). I make this declaration upon personal knowledge. 2 . P u r s u a n t t o L o c a l
R u l e 3 7 . 1 , t h e p a r t i e s m e t a n d c o n f e r r e d b y t e l e p h o n e o n Thursday, April 23,
2015 to discuss whether Defendant Scott Lively (Lively) would agree to allow Attorneys Eyes Only
designations for a discrete set of approximately 220 documents (the AEO Documents). For purposes of the
p86
29-5-2015
87
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
conference, SMUG sent Livelys counsel an index titled Index of Documents for Attorneys Eyes Only
Designation, identifying each of the
2AEO Documents by bates range, date, author, recipient, and description with SMUGs basis for making an
AEO designation. 3 . M y c o l l e a g u e , M r . K a l e b M c N e e l y , a n d I p a r t i c i p a t e d i n
t h e t e l e p h o n i c conference on behalf of SMUG, and Mr. Horatio Mihet and Mr. Roger Gannam,
participated on behalf of Lively.4 . D e s p i t e c o n f e r r i n g i n g o o d f a i t h , t h e p a r t i e s
were unable to reach agreement. 5.SMUGs position is that, as set
f o r t h i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n i t s c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y - filed Memorandum of Law, the
Protective Order should be amended to permit SMUG to designate documents Attorneys Eyes Only if they
fit within any of the four AEO Categories, and that documents so-marked should not be disclosed to Lively.
6.Livelys position, as articulated by his counsel during the
t e l e p h o n i c c o n f e r e n c e , is that he personally should be allowed to review all documents produced
by SMUG in this litigation.I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 5, 2015 at New York, New York.
_/s/ Daniel W. Beebe___
Daniel W. Beebe
END QUOTE
QUOTE
3:12-cv-30051 #151
Doc 151 - Spees Declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Doc 151 - Spees Declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION SEXUAL
MINORITIES UGANDA,
Plaintiff
,
v
. SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of Abiding Truth Ministries,
Defendant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-30051-MAP DECLARATION OF PAM SPEES, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN
DISCOVERY MATERIALS
I, PAM SPEES, hereby declare as follows: 1.
I am an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, New York and counsel to Plaintiff
Sexual Minorities Uganda in the above-captioned case, and submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs
Motion to Amend the Order Regarding Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Materials. 2.
I have reviewed the documents for which SMUG seeks Attorneys Eyes Only protection. 3.
60
p87
29-5-2015
88
The documents marked for Attorneys Eyes Only protection are identified as such given their inclusion in one
of the following categories: a.
Documents containing highly sensitive security-related information concerning the recent or ongoing
planning and organization of SMUGs efforts to respond to (a) emergent security situations of the LGBTI
community, particularly in the
wake of the passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Act and (b) the safety and security needs of its member
organizations, in particular post-passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Act. b.
10
Documents containing highly sensitive information concerning SMUGs recent or ongoing assistance with
and security planning for a health clinic for the LGBTI community, which provides HIV/AIDS testing,
treatment and counseling. c.
15
20
Confidential communications with foreign government representatives concerning the persecution as part of
their effort to ensure the safety and well-being of LGBTI persons in Uganda and guard against additional acts
of persecution; or d.
Emails, photographs, and video footage relating to a workshop held in February 2012 that was raided by the
Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity. The documents contain sensitive strategy discussions, and/or
identification of and information regarding LGBTI persons or supporters at significant risk of being outed. 4.
In reviewing the documents for which SMUG seeks Attorneys Eyes Only Designation, I also reviewed
related documents already produced to Defendant. 5.
25
With respect to documents in category (a) regarding security-related strategy and planning, Plaintiff has
produced other documents relating to past planning and organization that do not bear on its recent or ongoing
security planning with a CONFIDENTIAL designation under the existing Protective Order. 6.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
With respect to documents in category (b) relating to SMUGs recent and ongoing assistance with and
security planning for a health clinic for the LGBTI community, SMUG has produced other documents
concerning the Health Clinic and its support and assistance which do
not bear on its recent or ongoing security planning and assistance with a CONFIDENTIAL designation
pursuant to the existing Protective Order. 7.
With respect to documents relating to category (d), the February 2012 workshop, SMUG has produced other
documents concerning this event that do not reveal images or identities of workshop participants who are not
publicly known to be members or supporters of the Ugandan LGBTI community or that do not reveal details
about confidential advocacy strategies discussed at the workshop with a CONFIDENTIAL designation
pursuant to the existing Protective Order. 8.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of
NGOs Gay Plans Leak, Govt Furious,
The Observer, June 27, 2012,
available at
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19508%3Angos-gay- plans-leakgovt-furious&catid=78%3Atopstories&Itemid=116 (last accessed May 4, 2015). 9.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014, which I
accessed from the Uganda Legal Information Institute through which the Law Reporting Department of the
Department of the Judiciary of Uganda publishes case law and laws of Uganda. 10.
Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Ugandan Constitutional Court ruling in
Oloka-Onyango & 9 Ors v. Attorney General,
No. 08 of 2014, August 1, 2014, which I accessed from the Uganda Legal Information Institute. 11.
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of
Uganda Anti-Gay Law To Be Re-introduced in Parliament: Speaker,
The East African, August 13, 2014
available at
p88
29-5-2015
89
http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/2417680/-/5lydlqz/-/index.html (last accessed May 4, 2015).
12.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Saskia Houttuin,

Gay Ugandans Face New Threat From Anti-Homosexuality Law,
The Guardian, January 6, 2015
available at
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/-sp-gay-ugandans-face-new-threat-from-anti-homosexualitylaw
(last accessed May 4, 2015). I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 4, 2015 at New York, New York. _
/s/ Pam Spees
___________ PAM SPEES
Last Updated: 27 June 2012
Print A Gay hides from the public during one of their recent conferences
NGOs gay plans leak, govt furious
Written by Observer Media Ltd (/component/contact/contact/4)
The government says it has intercepted minutes of arecent meeting that discussed wide-ranging strategies
onho w to promote the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual andtransgender (LGBT) people in
Uganda.These strategies include how to raise funds and recruit friendly journalists into the cause
of fighting for homosexual rights in Uganda. Some sources have told The Observer that security
operatives infiltrated gaygroups and managed to get a document containing minutes of the meeting.
The unsigned document, a copy of which we have seen, names 41 people, from 23 NGOs, as having
attended themeeting on May 4, 2012, under the coordination of theCivil Society Coalition on Human
Rights andConstitutional Law (CSCHRCL).The organisations in attendance, we have been
told, areamong those that the government is threatening to banbecause of their LGBT advocacy work. The
documentshows that this was the 7th such strategy generalmeeting.Icebreakers Uganda, which hosted the
meeting, is a community-based organisation that supports the rights of LGBT people in thecountry. The
NGOs discussed, among others, developing a media strategy and strategic arguments against all the sexual
bills and for decriminalisation with a view to changing opinions and convincing the
public.This strategy involves mapping out friendly journalists, as well as hostile and
ignorant ones with the objective of identifying trainableournalists to become allies and
objective reporters on sexual minority and gend er identity issues. The plan is to raise a list of
40 journalists of a mixture of friendly, hostile and ignorant. The strategy, whose aim is gaining acceptance
for the sexual minority groups, with a time frame of June 2012 to June 2013, lists among its activities,
workshops, talk-shows, barazas and parliamentary advocacy programmes for legislators. The plan
is to roll out implementation of the strategy through civil society groups spread throughout the country. There
is also a welll aid-out plan to lobby the national, regional and international community to pile
pressure on the Uganda government to abandon the Anti-Homosexuality bill and any other laws
hostile to homosexuals.
Lokodo excited
The document has reportedly given Rev Simon Lokodo, the minister in charge of Ethics and Integrity,
ammunition to go after gayactivists with renewed zeal. Shortly before leaving for an official trip
abroad last week, an excited Lokodo, upon seeing the document, said he had finally obtained
the information he needed to fight homosexuality in Uganda. These people are disruptive; they
are promoting a negative culture contrary to the laws of this country. They are promoting homosexuality
and lesbianism as an acceptable culture, and this is ruining our lives, Lokodo said.
He added: This is not going to stop. We will support the bill. There is now sufficient
evidence to move against these evil people. Well punish them with a deterrent punishment.
We are looking for a day when this law is going to take shape. Last Wednesday, Lokodo
announced that the government would ban 38 NGOs deemed sympathetic to activities of LGBT people in the
country. He said he had passed the list of the NGOs to the Internal Affairs minister to get all of them
deregistered, as they wereengaging in an illegal activity. Lokodo told journalists that the NGOs
were receiving support from abroad and recruiting young children into the vice. We found
that, on the pretext of humanitarian concerns, these organisations are being used to promote negative cultures.
They are encouraging homosexuality as if it is the best form of sexual behaviour, he said.
The previous day, the police had halted a workshop of gay rights activists at Esella country hotel in Najjeera,
p89
29-5-2015
90
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
in the outskirts of Kampala, and briefly detained some participants and staff members of the East and Horn of
Africa Human Rights Defenders Project(EHAHRDP), one of the organisers of the event. Njoroge Njenga,
a programme officer with Freedom House, an American NGO, while admitting knowing
some of the names of participants at the strategy May 4 meeting, said he was not aware of the specific
details of that meeting, because he had only recently arrived in Uganda. Neil Blazevic, one of the
activists detained together with Njenga last Tuesday, is named as participant number 29 on
the attendance list of the May 4 NGOs meeting at Ice Breakers Uganda.
Gay Bill
Article 31 (2a) of the constitution, as well as provisions of the Ugandan Penal Code Act, prohibit same sex
relationships. Two years ago, Ndorwa West MP, David Bahati, moved a private members bill,
the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009, seeking to impose tougher punishment for promotion of,
and involvement in, homosexuality. Although the bill enjoys ample support across Uganda, western
governments have piled pressure on Kampala to stop the legislation on human rights ground s. Last
week, Bahati, while commenting on the latest campaign against gay activists, said his bill
intended to stop the promotion, recruitment, funding and same sex marriages. He insists that Uganda
must stand firm and reject attempts by people who want to promote activities of LGBT people, adding that
homosexuality is not a human rights issue in Uganda because it is illegal. When told about the
meeting minutes that Lokodos people had found, Bahati said: If it is true that such a document has
been[obtained], it serves to strengthen what we have been talking about; that these people
are deliberately recruiting followers andpromoting their actions, taking advantage of a weak
law. We no w need to move and strengthen the legal regime and make the punishment more
stringent.However, organisers of the no w controversial meeting are defiant. Jeff Ogwaro, the
national coordinator of CSCHRCL, told The Observer yesterday that the NGOs had been meeting
monthly for about six months. He, however, denied any wrongdoing. I am surprised that government does
not know its own laws, Ogwaro said. We are promoting human rights, just like those promoting
childrens rights but we dont have a curriculum that teaches people how to have [gay]
sex. Lokodo needs to be educated. He is ignorant.
List of NGOs facing ban
Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law Refugee Law Project
Rainbo w and Diversity Organisation Angel Support GroupTrans Equality Uganda
Rainbo w Foundation Mbarara newseditor@observer.ug (mailto:newseditor@observer.ug)
THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY ACT, 2014._________ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS.PART
IPRELIMINARY Section
1 . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . PART IIPR O H I B I T I O N O F HOMOSEXUALITY
.2. The offence of homosexuality.3. Aggravated homosexuality.4. Attempt to commit homosexuality.5. Protection,
assistance and payment of compensation to victims of homosexuality.6. Confidentiality .P
ART IIIRELATED OF F E N C E S A N D PENALTIES
.7. Aiding and abetting homosexuality.8. Conspiracy to engage in homosexuality.9. Procuring homosexuality
by threats, etc.10. Detention with intent to commit homosexuality.11. Brothels.12. Same sex marriage.13.
Promotion of homosexuality. PART IVMISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
.14. Extradition.1 5 . R e g u l a t i o n s .
Schedule
Currency point.1Act
Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014
2
Act
Anti-Homosexuality Act
2014
THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY ACT, 2014.An Act to prohibit any form of sexual relations between
persons of the same sex; prohibit the promotion or recognition of such relations and to provide for
other related matters.
DA T E O F ASSENT
:
Date of Commencement:
BE I T E N A C T E D
by Parliament as follows: PART IPRELIMINARY
.
p90
29-5-2015
91
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1. Interpretation.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requiresauthority means having power and control over other
people because of your knowledge and official position; and shall i n c l u d e a p e r s o n w h o e x e r c i s e s
r e l i g i o u s , p o l i t i c a l , economic or social authority; child means a person below the age of eighteen
years; court means a chief magistrates court; currency point has the value assigned to it in the Schedule
to this Act;3Act Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014
disability means a substantial limitation of daily life activities caused by physical, mental or sensory
impairment and environment barriers resulting in limited participation; felony means an offence which is
declared by law to be a felony or if not declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable without proof of previous
conviction, with death or with imprisonment for three years or more; HIV means the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus; "homosexual means a person who engages or attempts to engage in same gender
sexual activity; homosexuality means same gender or same sex sexual acts; Minister means the Minister
responsible for ethics and integrity; misdemeanor means any offence which is not a felony; serial
offender means a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences;
sexual act includes(a) physical sexual activity that does not necessarily culminate in intercourse and may
include the touching of anothers breast, vagina, penis or anus; (b) stimulation or penetration of a vagina or
mouth or anus or any part of the body of any person, howevers light by a sexual organ;(c) the unlawful use of
any object or organ by a person on another persons sexual organ or anus or mouth; sexual organ means a
vagina, penis or any artificial sexual contraption; touching includes touching4
Act
2014
(a) with any part of the body;(b) with anything else;(c) through anything; a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r i n c l u d e s
t o u c h i n g a m o u n t i n g t o penetration of any sexual organ, anus or mouth. victim includes a person
who is involved in homosexual activities against his or her will. PART
IIHOMOSEXUALITY AND RELATED PRACTICES
.
2. The offence of homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person
of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;(b) he or she uses any object or sexual
contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;(c) he or she touches another
person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.(2) A person who commits an offence under
this section shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.
3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality where the(a) person against whom the
offence is committed is below the age of eighteen years;(b) offender is a person living with HIV;5
Act
2014
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;(d) offender is a
person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;(e) victim of the offence is a
person with disability; (f) offender is a serial offender; or(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be
used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower him or her so as to
enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex.( 2 ) A p e r s o n
w h o c o m m i t s t h e o f f e n c e o f a g g r a v a t e d homosexuality shall be liable, on conviction, to
imprisonment for life.(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall
undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
4. Attempt to commit homosexuality.
( 1 ) A p e r s o n w h o a t t e m p t s t o c o m m i t t h e o f f e n c e o f homosexuality commits a felony and
is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for seven years.(2) A person who attempts to commit the offence of
aggravated homosexuality commits an offense and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.
5. Protection, assistance and payment of compensation to victims of homosexuality.
(1) A victim of homosexuality shall not be penalized for any crime committed as a direct result of his or her
involvement inhomosexuality.6
Act
2014
p91
29-5-2015
92
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
(2) A victim of homosexuality shall be assisted to enable his or her views and concerns to be presented and
considered at the appropriate stages of the criminal proceedings.(3) Where a person is convicted of
homosexuality or aggravated homosexuality under sections 2 and 3 of this Act, the court may, in addition to
any sentence imposed on the offender, order that the victim of the offence be paid compensation by the
offender for any physical, sexual or psychological harm caused to the victim by the offence.(4) The amount
of compensation shall be determined by the court and the court shall take into account the extent of harm
suffered by the victim of the offence, the degree of force used by the offender and medical and other
expenses incurred by the victim as a result of the offence.
6. Confidentiality.
(1) At any stage of the investigation or trial of an offence under this Act, law enforcement officer, prosecutor,
judicial officer and medical practitioner, and any party to the case, shall recognize the right to privacy of the
victim.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), in cases involving children and other cases where the court
considers it appropriate, proceedings of the court shall be conducted in camera.(3) Any editor, publisher,
reporter or columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or producer in case of television and radio,
producer or director of a film in case of the movie industry, or any person utilizing tri media facilities or
information technology who p u b l i s h e s o r c a u s e s t h e p u b l i c i t y o f t h e n a m e s a n d
p e r s o n a l circumstances or any other information tending to establish the victims identity without
authority of the victim or court, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding two
hundred and fifty currency points.7
Act Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014
PART IIIRELATED OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
.
7. Aiding and abetting homosexuality.
A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage in a c t s o f h o m o s e x u a l i t y
c o m m i t s a n o f f e n c e a n d i s l i a b l e , o n conviction, to imprisonment for seven years.
8. Conspiracy to engage in homosexuality.
A person who conspires with another to induce another person of the same sex by any means of false
pretence or other fraudulent means to permit any person of the same sex to have unlawful carnal knowledge
of him or her commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for seven years.
9. Procuring homosexuality by threats.
(1) A person who(a)bythreatsorintimidationprocuresoratemptstoprocureanywomanormantohaveanyunlawfulcarnalknowledgewithanypersonofthesamesex;or(b)byfalsepretencesorfalse
representationsprocuresanywomanormantohaveanyunlawfulcarnalconnectionwithanypersonofthesamesex;commits an offence and is liable
on conviction to imprisonment for seven years(2)Apersonshalnotbeconvictedofanoffenceunderthissectionupontheevidenceofonewitnessonly,unlessthatwitnessiscorroboratedin
somematerialparticularbyevidenceimplicatingtheaccused.
10. Detention with intent to commit homosexuality.
A person who detains another person with the intention to commit acts of homosexuality with him or her or
with any other person commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for seven years.8
Act
2014
11. Brothels.
(1) A person who keeps a house, room, set of rooms or place of any kind for purposes of homosexuality
commits an offence and isliable, on conviction, to imprisonment for seven years.(2)Apersonbeingtheowneroroccupierofpremisesorhaving
oractingorassistinginthemanagementorcontrolofthepremises,inducesorknowinglysuffersanymanorwomantoresortoorbeuponsuchpremisesforthepurposeofbeingunlawfulyandcarnalyknownbyanymanorwomanofthe
samesexwhethersuchcarnalknowledgeisintendedtobewithanyparticularmanorwomangeneraly,commitsafelonyandisliable,onconviction,toimprisonmentforfiveyears.
12. Same sex marriage.
(1) A person who purports to contract a marriage with an otherperson of the same sex commits the offence of
homosexuality andshall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.(2) A person or institution commits
an offence if that person or institution conducts a marriage ceremony between persons of the same sex and
shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a maximum of seven years for individuals or cancellation
of licence for an institution.
13. Promotion of homosexuality.
(1) A person who( a ) p a r t i c i p a t e s i n p r o d u c t i o n , p r o c u r i n g ,
m a r k e t i n g , broadcasting, disseminating, publishing of pornographic materials for purposes of
promoting homosexuality;( b ) f u n d s o r s p o n s o r s h o m o s e x u a l i t y o r o t h e r r e l a t e d
a c t i v i t i e s ; (c)offers premises and other related fixed or movable assets forpurposesofhomosexualityorpromoting
homosexuality;( d ) u s e s e l e c t r o n i c d e v i c e s w h i c h i n c l u d e i n t e r n e t , f i l m s , mobile
phones for purposes of homosexuality or promoting homosexuality; or9
Act
p92
29-5-2015
93
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2014
( e ) w h o a c t s a s a n a c c o m p l i c e o r a t t e m p t s t o p r o m o t e o r i n a n y way abets
homosexuality and related practices;commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of fivethousand
currency points or imprisonment of a minimum of fiveyears and a maximum of seven years or both fine and
imprisonment.(2)Wheretheoffenderisacorporatebodyorabusinessoranassociationoranon-governmentalorganization,onconvictionitscertificateofregistrationshalbecanceledandthedirector,
proprietororpromotershalbeliable,onconviction,toimprisonmentforsevenyears.P
ART
IVM
ISCELLANEOUS
.
1 4 . E x t r a d i t i o n .
A person charged with an offence under this Act shall be liable toextradition under the existing extradition
laws.
15. Regulations
.T h e M i n i s t e r m a y , b y s t a t u t o r y i n s t r u m e n t , m a k e r e g u l a t i o n s generally for better
carrying out the provisions of this Act.10
Act
2014
SCHEDULE
s.1.CURRENCY POINTOne currency point is equivalent to twenty thousand shillings.
11
Act
2014
JUDGMENTS
Supreme CourtConstitutional CourtCourt of AppealHigh CourtHC: Civil DivisionHC: Criminal DivisionHC:
Anti-corruption DivisionHC: Family DivisionHC: International Crimes DivisionHC: Land
DivisionCommercial CourtCenter for Arbitration and Dispute ResolutionTax Appeals Tribunal
LEGISLATION
Laws of Uganda, 2000 Acts of ParliamentBills of ParliamentStatutory Instruments
JOURNALS
Law Commons - Journal Articles
Home
Oloka-Onyango & 9 Ors v Attorney General
1 . P R O F . J O L O K A - O N Y A N G O 2.HON. FOX ODOI -OYWELOWO3 . A N D R E W M .
M W E N D A 4.PROF. MORIS OGENGA-LATIGO5.DR. PAUL NSUBUGA
SEMUGOMA 6.JACQUELINE KASHA NABAGESERA ::: 7 . J U L I A N P E P E
ONZIEMA 8 . F R A N K M U G I S H A
Submitted by Jane Mugala on 14 August 2014 - 11:02am
Court Division:
None
Case No:
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION N0. 08 OF 2014.
Media Neutral Citation:
[2014] UGCC 14
Judgment Date:
1 August 2014
AttachmentSize
Oloka-Onyango & 9 Ors v Attorney General.docx59.72 KBTHE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION N0. 08 OF
2014.
A B O U T N E W S C O N T A C T
U S T E R M S U L I I
H E L P A D V A N C E D
S E A R C H
P a g e 1 o f 1 2 Oloka-Onyango & 9 Ors v Attorney General | Uganda Legal Information
Institute5/1/2015http://www.ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court/2014/14
p93
29-5-2015
94
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60

9.HUMAN RIGHTS AWARENESS & PROMOTION FORUM (HRAPF)10.CENTRE FOR HEALTH
HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT(CEHURD)T VS ATTORNEY GENERAL
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDNENTCoram: Hon. Mr. Justice S.B.Kavuma, Ag. DCJ Hon. Mr.
Justice A.S Nshimye, JA/CC Hon. |Mr. Justice Eldad Mwangusya, JA/CC Hon. Mr. Justice Rubby Aweri
Opio, JA/CC Hon. lady Justice Solomy Balungi Bossa, JA/CCPETITION BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLES
137(1) & (3)(A) AND (B),(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UGANDA AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COURT (PETITIONS AND REFERENCES) RULES, SI 91/2005) JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe
above 10 petitioners moved this Court by petition under the abovementioned provisions of the Constitution
alleging;a.That the enactment of the Ant i-Homosexuality Act 2014 by the 9th Parliament on
20th December 2013, without quorum in the house
was in contravention of Articles 2(1) & (2), 88 and 94(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and
Rule 23 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure;b. That Sections 1,2, and 4 of the Anti
Homosexuality Act 2014, in defining the criminalising consensual same sex/gender sexual activity
among adults in private, are in contravention of the right to equality before the law without any
discrimination and the right to privacy guaranteed under Articles 2(1) & (2), 21(1 ),(2) & (4) and 27 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda respectively;c. That Section 2(1)(c) of the Anti Homosexuality Act 2014, in criminalising touching by persons of the same sex creates an offence that is
overly broad and is in contravention of the principle of legality under Articles 2(1) & (2), 28(1), (3b), (12),42
and 44(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda;d. That Section 2, of the Anti-Homosexuality Act
2014, in imposing a maximum life sentence for Homosexuality provides for a disproportionate punishment
for the offence in contravention of the right to equality and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading
punishment guaranteed under Articles 2(1) &(2), 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of
Uganda. (e)That Section 31(b) of the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014, incriminalising consensual same
sex/gender sexual activity among adults in which one is a person living with HIV is in contravention of the
freedom from discrimination guaranteed under Articles 2(1) & (2) and 21(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the
Republic of Uganda 1995.(f) That Section 3(1)(e) of the Anti Homosexuality Act 2014, incriminalising
consensual same sex/gender sexual activity among adults in which one is a person with disability is in
contravention of the freedom from discrimination and the right to dignity of persons with disabilities
guaranteed under Articles 2(1) &(2), 21(1), (2) & (4c) and 35 of the Constitution. (g) That Section 3(3) of the
Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014, in subjecting persons charged with aggravated homosexuality to a compulsory
HIV test, is in contravention of the freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, freedom from cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to the presumption of innocence guaranteed under Articles
2(1) & (2), 21, 24, 27, 28, 44 and 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda;h. That Section 4(2) of the
Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014 in imposing a maximum life sentence for attempted aggravated
homosexuality, provides for a disproportionate punishment for the offence in contravention of the right to
equality, and the freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment guaranteed under Articles 2(1)
&(2), 21, 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995;i.That Sections 7 and 13(1)
& (2) of the Anti - Homosexuality Act
2014, in criminalising aiding, abetting, counseling, procuring and promotion of homosexuality, create
offences that are overlybroad, penalise, legitimate debate, professional counsel, HIV related service provision
and access to health services, in contravention of the principle of legality, the freedoms of expression,
thought, assembly and association, and the right to civic participation guaranteed under Principle XIV of the
National objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, Articles 2(1)&(2), 8A, 28(1), (3b), & 12, 29(1),
36, 38(2), 42 and 44(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.(j) That Section 8 of the AntiHomosexuality Act 2014, criminalising conspiracy by any means of false pretence or other fraudulent means,
is vague, uncertain and ambiguous and in contravention of the principal of legality under Articles 2(1) & 2,
28(1), & (3b), 42, 44(c) 28(12) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995.(k) That Section 11 of the
Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014, in classifying houses or rooms as brothels merely on the basis of occupation
by homosexuals, creates an offence that is overly broad and in contravention of the principle of legality
guaranteed under Article 28(12) of the Constitution; and is further in contravention of the rights to property
and privacy guaranteed under Articles 2(1) & 2., 21,26,27 and 28 (12) of the Cons titution of the
Republic of Uganda 1995; (l) That the spirit of the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014, by promoting and
encouraging homophobia, amounts to institutionalised promotion of a culture of hatred and constitutes a
contravention of the right to dignity and is inconsistent with and in contravention of the National Objectives
p94
29-5-2015
95
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
and Directive Principles of State Policy especially objection N0. III,V,VI and XIV and Articles 2(1)& (2),
8A, 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda of 1995; (m) That the Anti- Homosexuality
Act 2014, by encouraging homophobia and stigmatisation, is in contravention of the duty of the government
to respect, protect and promote the rights and freedoms of persons likely to be affected by the Act as
stipulated under Articles 2(1) & (2), 20(2),21(1), 32(1) and (2) of the Constitution.(n)That the Anti
Homosexuality Act 2014 in criminalising consensual same sex/gender sexual activity among adults, is in
contravention of obligations with regards to the rights guaranteed under international Human Rights
instruments ratified or acceded by Uganda, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Rights on the Rights of Women in African,
the UN Covenant on Civil and Political rights; and the UN Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural rights;
and in contravention of Objectives XIV, XXXVIII(i) (b) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles
of State Policy, Articles 2(1) &(2), 8A, 20 45 and 287 of the Constitution; (sic) Counsel Rwakafuzi L, Alaka
Caleb, Nicholas Opiyo, John Francis Onyango and Fredah Mutetsi represented the petitioners while the
Attorney General was represented by Ms Patricia Mutesi, a Principal State Attorney and Bafilawala Elisha, a
Senior State Attorney from the Attorney Generals Chambers.Eleven issues were framed to be resolved by
this Court. However, at the commencement of the hearing, counsel for both parties agreed with Court that it
should first hear them on the first issue which could dispose of the whole petition, namely;" Whether the
Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014, was enacted without quorum in the House in a manner that is inconsistent
with and in contravention of Articles 2(1) & (2) and 88 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995
and Rule 23 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure."The case for the Petitioners.
Counsel Nicholas Opiyo submitted that the gist of the above issue was that the process, procedure, and
manner of the enactment of the Anti Homosexuality Act, particularly the proceedings of the 9th Parliament
on December 20th 2013, was in contravention of and inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 88 (1), 94 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and in violation of Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the 9th
Parliament. He argued that the doctrine of legislative sovereignty is crafted in Article 79 (1) of the
Constitution giving powers to Parliament to enact laws for the peace, order and good governance of Uganda
and to exercise it alongside the provisions of Articles 91 and 79 of the Constitution. According to counsel,
legislative sovereignty must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The rationale
was to preserve the principle of Constitutional supremacy entrenched in Article 2 (1) of the Constitution. In
his view, Parliament was accordingly expected to be guided by the provisions of the Constitution. He cited
the decision of this court in the case of Twinobusingye Severino Vs. the Attorney General, Constitutional
Petition Number 47 of 2011 to fortify his submissions on Constitutional supremacy. Counsel pointed out the
particular acts of violation complained of which are contained in the affidavits, particularly of Professor
Maurice Ogenga Latigo, the former leader of opposition in the 8th Parliament and that of Hon. Fox Odoi,
who was the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Rules and Privileges. In brief, they are that on
20th December, 2013 when the Anti Homosexuality Act was being put to vote before Parliament, a
procedural question as to the quoram in the House was raised by none other than the Rt Hon. Prime Minister
of this country Amama John Patrick Mbabazi who is also the leader of Government business in Parliament as
recorded in the certified Hansard of Parliament V0l. 1 at pages 168 and 177 annexed to the affidavit of the
2nd petitioner. The Prime Minister said; Madam Chair I rise on a point of procedure because I wasnt aware,
you should be very careful that if you pass this law it must be with Coram. Please these are not joking
matters, Therefore I would like to raise that point and to say that certainly I would like to see a Coram
realized in this house to pass this bill therefore rise on a point of procedure one on consultations and the
second on Coram." The Prime Minister raised this point twice. According to counsel, the concern was also
supported by Hon. Betty Aol Ochan who said that the house should only pass the law if there was corum.
Counsel pointed out that Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the 9th Parliament particularly Rule 23
requires that when a procedural question is raised about coram, the question has to be determined. The
Speaker of the House should suspend proceedings of the House for an interval of 15 minutes and have a bell
rang. On resumption of the proceedings after the expiry of the 15 minutes, if the number of Members present
is still less than the required Coram for voting, the Speaker should proceed with other business or suspend the
sitting of the House or adjourn the House without putting the question and the Speaker or Chairperson shall
adjourn the committee as he case may be. To counsel, it was a fundamental provision to protect the integrity
of Parliament and to ensure that Parliament is not turned into a cocoon of people conniving to pass laws
without Coram. Counsel contended that this procedure was ignored by the Hon. Speaker of the House who
went ahead to put the question to a vote. Counsel referred to the affidavit of Hon. Fox Odoi, particularly in
paragraphs 7-11, which highlights what happened in the House on the mentioned date. He further relied on
the affidavit of the Hon. Professor Maurice Ogenga Latigo which elaborates on the mandate of Rt. Hon.
Speaker to determine the business of the House under the Rules of Procedure. She has got to follow the law,
p95
29-5-2015
96
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
and the Rules of Parliament and the dictates of the Constitution. Counsel Alaka, associated himself with the
submissions of his colleague, Nicholas Opiyo. He reminded Court of the basic principles of Constitutional
interpretation such as interpreting the constitution as a whole, the rule of harmony, completeness and
exhaustiveness. He relied on the authority of John Livingstone Okello Okello and others Vs. Attorney
General Constitutional Petition Number 4 of 2005.He submitted that Article 79 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Uganda empowers Parliament to make laws on any matter for the peace, order, development and
good governance of Uganda. Article 88 of the 15 Constitution deals with Coram of Parliament which shall be
prescribed by the Rules of Procedure of Parliament made under Article 94 of the Constitution. Article 89 of
the Constitution deals with voting in Parliament. Article 94 of the
Constitution provides that Parliament may make rules to regulate its own procedure including the procedure
of the Committees. The Constitution is the Supreme law of Uganda and shall have binding force on all
authorities and persons throughout Uganda and if any other law is inconsistent with any of the provisions of
this Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail and that other law shall to the extent of its inconsistence be
null and void to the extent of inconsistence. See Article 2(2) of the Constitution. Counsel referred to the
speech of Mr. Katoto in the debate appearing on page 177 of the Hansard where he was recorded to have
said; Madam chair we passed several bills yesterday and he was around (referring to the Prime Minister)
why didnt he stop us on the basis that there was no Coram, we passed several bills why are you stopping this
one madam chair we should continue and pass this bill to save the people of Uganda, what is your worry
about this" Counsel cited the authorities of Paul K. Ssemwogerere and Zackary Olum Vs. Attorney General
Constitutional Appeal N0. 1 of 2002 (SC) and P.K Ssemwogerere and others Vs Attorney General
Constitutional Petition N0. 7 of 2000 in which court has pronounced itself on Acts passed without a Coram.
In that Petition the issue, was about the passing of the Referendum and other Provisions Act of 1999. The
Supreme Court held that the concern of Coram is very fundamental. In that case, the Speaker resorted to the
register of attendance of Members to determine whether there was a Coram and the Supreme Court held that
it was a contentious matter as to whether any or all the Members allegedly registered and being somewhere in
the Parliament building or precincts of Parliament are proved to have been present in the chamber of the
House and able to vote in accordance with the provision of Article 89 of the Constitution so as to satisfy the
requirement of a Coram within the meaning of Article 88. In Constitutional Petition N0. 7 of 2000 (supra),
the Constitutional Court 25 held that any Act or any bill which is passed without Coram is null and void.
Counsel invited us to look at the affidavits of Hon. Fox Odoi, Professor Maurice Ogenga Latigo and that of
Professor J. Oloka Onyango and the Hansard; Counsel submitted that the answer to the Petition by the
Attorney General in paragraph 4 does not in any way rebut or answer the question of the Bill being passed
without a Coram. Equally, according to him, in the affidavit of Dennis Bireije, the Commissioner for Civil
Litigation, Attorney Generals chambers, there is no single denial or mention about Coram. He kept quiet
about it so there was no evidence to rebut the assertion which was ably raised on the floor of Parliament and
which the Speaker ignored.In his conclusion, counsel submitted that it was crystal clear from the Petitioners
affidavit evidence, and Hansard, that that evidence has not been rebutted and ought to be accepted and Court
should find that that Bill or the Act was passed without a Coram and it contravened and was inconsistent with
or in contravention of Articles 2 (2) of the Constitution, 88, 94 and 79 of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the
Rules of Procedure of the 9th Parliament. He prayed that on that basis alone, the Petition be allowed. CASE
FOR THE RESPONDENTIn reply, learned counsel Mutesi opposed the petition and relied on theanswer to
the Petition and the supporting affidavit of Mr. Dennis Bireije. According to her, the only issue in respect of
passing of the Act is pleaded in paragraph 12 of the 2nd petitioner which states that the enactment of the
Anti-Homosexuality Act by the 9th Parliament on 20th December 2013 without Coram in the House was in
contravention of the stated Articles and the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure. The key aspect to this petition
according to her, was an allegation that 30 Parliament in passing that Act without a Coram, violated the
Constitution, and so the key issue arising from the pleadings is; the absence of Coram. She
wondered how Court would determine either the existence, or absence of Coram as alleged by the petitioners.
She contended that it is very clear that it is a matter of fact and it requires evidence and that when an
allegation of fact is made in any court of law, it can only be proved by evidence. She referred us to the
evidence of the petitioners that was filed and said that the only relevant affidavits in respect to the passing of
the Act was that of Hon Fox Odoi and Hon. Prof. Ogenga Latigo. She argued further that Hon. Prof. Ogenga
Latigo is not a Member of the 9th Parliament. His affidavit clearly states that he was a Member of the
8th Parliament and he never alleged to have been present when the Act was passed. In the affidavit of Hon.
Fox Odoi, the relevant provisions are paragraphs 7-13, where he stated that during the proceedings in plenary
p96
29-5-2015
97
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
on that date when the Bill was being put to vote, the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister raised a procedural question as
to Coram. The Hon. Speaker ignored the matter of Coram and in complete violation of Articles 88 and 94 of
the Constitution and Rule 23. That in accordance with Rule 23(3), the Speaker is required to ascertain
whether the Members of Parliament present in the House form a Coram and on that day, the Speaker did not
ascertain the number in the House. She ignored the Rules and decided that the Bill be voted upon. Counsel
highlighted the averments in paragraphs 10 to 13. In summary, the witness stated the laid down procedure
that was followed in passing the Anti-Homosexuality Act. According to her, the entire affidavit adduced
evidence to shows that the Speaker did not follow the Rules of Parliament. She did not act in accordance with
Rule 23 by not ascertaining Coram and that her act was contrary to the law; the Constitution and the Rules of
Parliament. She reiterated that the pleadings before this Court is that the Act was passed without Coram and
re-emphasized that paragraph 9, mentions that Rt. Hon. Speaker ignored the Rules and decided that the Bill
be voted upon when there was no Coram. According to her, there is no evidence on record on the alleged fact
on the absence of Coram. She argued further that the fact of absence of Coram is what is alleged to have
made the Act inconsistent with the Constitution. The two deponents did not state what is the required number
of Coram in the present Parliament. Maybe going by Rule 23, she wondered what was the equivalent of one
third. She cited the case of Paul K. Semwogerere and others Vs Attorney Constitutional Petition N0. 7 of
2000 General in which there was a specific allegation that there were less than 93 MPs. It was a matter of fact
which cannot be wished away. Counsel contended further that there was no single allegation by any of the
deponents that they know the number of MPs who were in chambers and that they were below the required
one third. There was equally no allegation that anybody ascertained from the register or from those in the
chamber so as to be able to know that there was no Coram. She emphasized that there was nothing in the
pleadings which alleges that the failure of the Speaker to act in accordance with Rule 23 is inconsistent with
the Constitution. In her view, counsel for the Petitioners was arguing a hypothetical case that was not before
Court. What was before Court was that an Act was passed without Coram which omission is inconsistent
with the Constitution? Counsel submitted that the Hansard is a record of what was spoken in Parliament, and
not a record of the numbers of MPs who were in the chambers. To her, it is well known that not every
Member in the chamber has to speak, it is only a record of anybody who spoke. She explained that the
challenge by the Hon. Prime Minister was not evidence of the existence or absence of Coram. His statement
according to counsel was evidence that he raised a challenge about Coram and that is all. Counsel referred us
to the statement of Hon. Aol, the last paragraph where she stated;
Madam chair you know one of us must be serious, when we dont come here we should not blame this
house, the house should just move on especially right now if there is Coram we should move on, I believe
since you have raised that point of procedure if we tried to check may be we have the Coram. Counsel
argued that both those statements cannot be relied on to ascertain as a matter of fact, whether or not there was
Coram. There was only evidence that certain Members were of the opinion that may be there was no Coram.
It could only be ascertained on the basis of the evidence presented. She asserted that the two deponents did
not produce factual evidence to establish the alleged fact of the absence of Coram. On the burden of proof,
Counsel Mutesi asserted that the burden of proof that there was no Coram was upon the Petitioners which
burden they had failed to discharge. Counsel relied on the lead Judgment of Hon, Justice A. Twinomujuni,
(RIP) in Paul Kawanga Ssemwogerere and Zachary Olum Vs Attorney General Constitutional Petition N0.
3/1999.Counsel contended that on the basis of the Semwogerere case, (supra) the petitioners failed to
establish a prima facie case that the Act was enacted without Coram. She contended further that the
allegations of fact contained in the Petitions paragraph 12(a) which is the only paragraph challenging the
passing of the Act required to be proved in accordance with the Evidence 15 Act because they are only
allegations of fact. She drew our attention to Article 126 of this Constitution which enjoins this Court to
exercise its judicial power in accordance with the law which includes the law of evidence. The evidence
adduced by the Petitioners that the Speaker did not comply with Rule 23 by failing to ascertain Coram is not
in itself evidence of the absence of Coram. Lastly, she cited the case of Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd Vs The
Attorney General of Uganda EACJ Appeal N0. 10 of 2011 to the effect that it is a cardinal principle that a
Court of law will not adjudicate hypothetical questions, a Court will not hear a case in the abstract, one which
is purely academic or speculative in nature about which there is no underlying facts in contention and that the
reason for this doctrine is to avoid the scenario of the Court engaging its efforts to apply a specific law to a
set of speculative facts. She prayed that we dismiss the Petition with costs to the Attorney General. Case in
rejoinder In rejoinder, Counsel Alaka Caleb clarified that the enactment of the Anti Homosexuality Act 2014,
by the 9th Parliament on 20th December 2013 without Coram in the house was in contravention of Articles
2(1) and (2), 88 and 94 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and Rule 23 of the Parliamentary
Rules of Procedure. The affidavit evidence of Hon. Fox Odoi brought out the fact clearly. Rule 23(1) which is
made pursuant to Article 94 of Constitution imposes on the Speaker a Constitutional command to ascertain
p97
29-5-2015
98
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
that there is a Coram. According to the evidence adduced, she disobeyed that command. Counsel adopted the
definition of ascertainment from the case of Ssemwogerere (supra) cited by learned Principal State
Attorney Mutesi Patricia where it was stated to mean; find out with certainty, to make certain or definite.
Counsel Alaka did not agree with counsel Mutesi who submitted that this was a hypothetical case. He
asserted that there was a real dispute as to whether in passing the Anti-Homosexuality Act, the Speaker of
Parliament flouted Article 88 of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure and
that this was a live dispute and not academic or hypothetical.He submitted further that failure to comply with
Rule 23 of the Rules of 30 Procedure was an illegality. Once an illegality is brought to the attention of Court,
it overrides all questions of pleadings and It becomes immaterial whether that was pleaded or not. He cited
the celebrated case of Makula International Vs His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & another [1982].
Counsel John Francis Onyango supplemented by submitting that our Parliament has no power to ignore the
conditions of the law making process that are imposed by the Constitution. He prayed that a declaration that
the act of Parliament in passing into law and enacting the Anti Homosexuality bill without Coram is
inconsistent and in contravention of Articles 2, 88, 94 of the Constitution and Rules 23 of the Parliamentary
Rules of Procedure and that the Act ought to be declared null and void.Counsel Nicolas Opio also
supplemented what his colleagues submitted with four brief points.(1) That the Hansard is a record of
proceedings andIncludes more than just words spoken on the floor of Parliament and the entire proceedings
should be looked at. That the enactment of a law is not an event but a process. He submitted that the
Affidavits of the Rt. Hon. Moses Latigo and Fox Odoi describe that entire process of enactment of the Act in
detail and includes ignoring the determination of the question on the 25 Coram. It includes the willful
violation of Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure of this Parliament. That on the question of illegality, the case
of Makula International Vs Emmanuel Nsubuga (supra) is to the point. On burden of proof, counsel
submitted that the facts being alleged are within the knowledge of the learned Attorney General who sits
in Parliament, and advises government. If they allege that there was Coram, the burden is on them to show
that there was indeed coram. Counsel reiterated their earlier prayer that the issue be decided in their favour
and that the declaration sought be granted with costs. Decision of the Court. We have heard and considered
the useful submissions made by both counsel and we are highly indebted to them. Though much has been
said, two simple questions emerge for our answer on issue one.1.Was the Anti Homosexuality Act passed in
accordance with the law?2.Whether the petitioners had proved that during the enacting process of the Anti
Homosexuality Act, the Rt. Hon Speaker ignored to invoke Rule 23 when the Prime Minister and Hon. Betty
Aol raised an objection that there was no quorum at the time the Bill was put to vote at the 2nd and 3rd
reading as alleged? Answer to question one The petitioners in their petition and evidence allege that the Anti
Homosexuality Act was not passed in accordance with the Law. On the other hand, the respondent states that
there is no evidence to prove that there was no Coram and that the burden to prove that fact rested with the
Petitioners. We agree with learned counsel Mutesi Patricia that the burden of proof of that fact rested with the
Petitioners who alleged the violation of the various provisions of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the Rules of
Procedure of Parliament. An exception to the above Rule is that where one has alleged a fact and the person
against whom the fact is alleged, does not deny, he is presumed to have accepted that fact. The respondent
was served with the P a g e 9 o f 1 2 Oloka-Onyango & 9 Ors v Attorney General | Uganda Legal
Information Institute5/1/2015http://www.ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court/2014/14
Petition and the accompanying affidavits of Hon. Fox Odoi and Professor Ogenga Latigo, among others,
alleging violation of the Constitution and Rules of Procedure in the process of passing of the AntiHomosexuality Act. In his reply, and the accompanying affidavit of Mr. Bireije, Commissioner for Civil
Litigation, the respondent did not specifically deny the said allegations of violation and lack of Coram. The
law applicable to determine what happens when there is no specific denial is the Civil Procedure Act, cap 71
and the Civil Procedure Rules, S.I 71-1. Rule 23 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules,
S.I 91 of 2005 empowers this court to apply the Civil Procedure Act and Rules there under to regulate the
Practice and procedure in Petitions and References with such modifications as the Court may consider
necessary in the interest of Justice. Order VIII Rule 3 of the Civil procedure rules provides; Every allegation
of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the
pleading of the opposite party, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability but
the court may in its discretion require any facts so admitted to be proved otherwise than by that
admission". In view of the above Rule and in the absence of a specific denial by the respondent in his
pleadings with regard to issue one, we are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel Patricia Mutesi
that the petitioners had a burden to do more than what they did. The evidence contained in the affidavit
(including the annexure of the Hansard), of Hon. Fox Odoi stood strong and unchallenged. In the case of
H.G. Gandesha & another Vs G.J Lutaya SCCA N0. 14 of 1989, Court observed that where facts are sworn to
p98
29-5-2015
99
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
an affidavit, the burden to deny them is on the other party. Failure to do that, they are presumed to have been
accepted. It is clear from that evidence, that at least three Members of Parliament including the Prime
Minister expressed concern about the issue of lack of Coram. Court is enjoined under Section 56 of the
Evidence Act to take judicial notice of the following fact;56 (a).......(b)........c. The course of Proceeding of
Parliament and of councils or other authorities for the purpose of making laws and Regulations published
under any law for the time being relating thereto.d . ) . . . . . . . . e . ) . . . . . . . . . f. The accession to office,
names, titles, functions and signatures of the persons filling for the time being of any public office in any part
of Uganda if the fact the their appointment to that office is notified in the gazette(underlining is ours).Coram
is defined in the Rules of Procedure of Parliament to mean at least a third of all the members entitled to vote.
As indicated above, Court may take judicial notice of the Uganda Gazette where Members of Parliament
representing different Constituencies are published and Court may easily ascertain what a third of the eligible
voting members is equal to.
P a g e 1 0 o f 1 2 Oloka-Onyango & 9 Ors v Attorney General | Uganda Legal Information
It is our decision that the respondent having been presumed to have admitted the allegations of the Petitioners
in the petition that there was no Coram, we find that on the balance of probabilities, the Petitioners have
proved that at the time the Prime Minister (twice) and Hon. Betty Aol, raised the objection that there was no
Coram and Coram was never established, and that was in contravention of the Constitution and the
Rules. Answer to question 2.We find that the respondent in his pleadings and submissions did not even
attempt to suggest that the Rt. Hon. Speaker responded in any way to the objection raised that there was no
Coram. Rule 23 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure require the Speaker, even without prompting by any
Member of Parliament to ensure that Coram exists before a law is passed. We note that the Speaker was
prompted three times by Hon. Mbabazi and Hon. Aol to the effect that there was no Coram in the house. The
speaker was obliged to ensure compliance with the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure of
Parliament. She did not. Parliament as a law making body should set standards for compliance with the
Constitutional provisions and with its own Rules. The Speaker ignored the Law and proceeded with the
passing of the Act. We agree with Counsel Opiyo that the enactment of the law is a process, and if any of the
stages therein is flawed, that vitiates the entire process and the law that is enacted as a result of it. We have
therefore no hesitation in holding that there was no Coram in Parliament when the Act was passed, that the
Speaker acted illegally in neglecting to address the issue of lack of Coram. We come to the conclusion that
she acted illegally. Following the decision of Makula International Vs Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga, supra
failure to obey the Law (Rules) rendered the whole enacting process a nullity. It is an illegality that this Court
cannot sanction. In the result, we uphold issue one in favour of the petitioners and grant them the following
declarations under prayer (e).i . T h a t t h e a c t o f t h e 9 th
Parliament in enacting the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014 on 20 December 2013 without quorum in the
House is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 2(1) and (2) and 88 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Uganda 1995 and Rule 23 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure and thus null and void.ii. That
the act of the Rt. Hon. Speaker of not entertaining the objection that there was no Corm was an illegality
under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure which tainted the enacting process and rendered it a nullity. The Act
itself so enacted by this reason is unconstitutional. The issue therefore of disposes of the whole petition.
Having found in the affirmative on Issue 1, we find that that has the effect of resolving the entire Petition.
The Petition is, therefore, hereby allowed. We award the petitioners 50% of the taxed costs. That aside, in the
course of the hearing, the respondent was aggrieved by our decision not to grant counsel for the respondent
adjournment to enable her to correct further evidence. She indicated that the respondent intended to appeal
against our decision and sought stay of the hearing under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of this Court pending the
said intended appeal.
We declined to give the said stay and he promised to give our reasons in this judgment. The above Rule talks
of inherent powers of this court. In the absence of evidence that the appeal process had been commenced, we
refused to invoke the said inherent powers.Dated at Kampala this...01
st
....day of...August....2014. HON. MR. JUSTICE S.B.K KAVUMA, ACTING. DCJHON. MR. JUSTICE A.S
NSHIMYE, JUSTICE OF APPEALHON. | MR. JUSTICE ELDAD MWANGUSYA, JUSTICE OF
APPEALHON. MR. JUSTICE RUBBY AWERI OPIO,JUSTICE OF APPEALHON. LADY JUSTICE
SOLOMY BALUNGI BOSSA, JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Constitutional Court
p99
29-5-2015
100
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55

NEWS
Uganda anti-gay law to be re-introduced in parliament: speaker
A Ugandan man with a sticker on his face takes part in the annual gay pride in Entebbe, Uganda, on August
9, 2014. The six-month-old law had meant that homosexuals could be jailed for life. PHOTO | AFP | ISAAC
KASAMANI
IN SUMMARY
Homosexuality remains illegal in Uganda and punishable by a jail sentence, even without the tough new
law.Ugandan lawmakers will vote on reinstating a severe anti-gay law just weeks after it was scrapped by the
country's constitutional court, the parliamentary speaker said on Tuesday. The six-month-old law had meant
that homosexuals could be jailed for life. It was popular domestically, but was branded draconian and
"abominable" by rights groups and was overturned on a technicality by the constitutional court on August
1.Speaker of parliament Rebecca Kadaga said she expected the bill would be re-introduced when it returns
from its break, probably later this month. "There is enthusiasm among the members of parliament. Over 200
members have signed the petition to re-table it," Kadaga said on Tuesday."By these numbers it is a sign it
will be passed overwhelmingly," she added. The new petition also calls for the process to be sped up,
bypassing normal parliamentary rules that require the law to be reintroduced from scratch a potentially
lengthy process.The legislation, signed by President Yoweri Museveni in February, also outlawed the
promotion of homosexuality and obliged Ugandans to denounce gays to the authorities. Judges ruled it had
been passed in December without the necessary quorum of lawmakers in parliament.Homosexuality remains
illegal in Uganda and punishable by a jail sentence, even without the tough new law. Uganda's attorney
general said last week that an appeal against the constitutional court ruling had also been lodged at the
Supreme Court.US Secretary of State John Kerry has likened the law to anti-Semitic legislation in Nazi
Germany, and Western nations have frozen or redirected millions of dollars of government aid in
response.Critics have accused Museveni of drumming up homophobia to boost his support ahead of a
presidential election scheduled for 2016, which will be his 30th year in power.
Back to The East African: Uganda anti-gay law to be re-introduced in parliament: speaker
<URL: javascript:history.go(-1)>
P a g e 1 o f 1 Uganda anti-gay law to be re-introduced in parliament: speaker News5/1/2015http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/2417680/-/view/printVersion/-/qbk2m3/-/inde...
Gay Ugandans face new threat from anti-homosexuality law
LGBT community prepares for round two in the battle for their rights, as new government legislation is
expected to outlaw the promotion of homosexual acts
Saskia Houttuin
Tuesday 6 January 2015 00.00
EST
Go away! We know who you are. We dont want you in our country. If we see you, well burn you to death. Melanie
Kiwagama reads out the text messages she received last year, after Ugandas notorious anti-homosexuality
bill came into effect. Since then, she says the flow of threats towards her and her partner have been
constant.Despite being annulled by the countrys constitutional court on a technicality last summer, MPs havent
given up on attempts to further criminalise homosexuality. According to a leaked draft, a new law is in the making.We
had no clue what was happening, says Kiwagamas girlfriend Rachael Kungu, referring to the heightened prejudice they
face. The couple have been together for 12 years and are raising a five-year-old son. Of course there was
gossip before, and wed receive threats. Sometimes we would hear stories of a guy being beaten up because
he was trying to hit on some man or something. But the hate wasnt that widespread until now.Kungu is a famous
DJ in Uganda, and a popular figure in Kampalas nightlife scene. But where tabloids like Red Pepper and
Hello! Uganda previously wrote about her performances, her name and photos now feature in articles
headlined Exposed! or Straight by day, gay by night. She saves a copy of each of these newspapers
behind her bed. Evidence, she shrugs. In case something happens.
Discrimination
In Uganda, homophobia has been widespread since the prohibition of homosexuality in the 1950s. But it wasnt
until February that president Yoweri Museveni signed a law that not only outlawed homosexual acts, but also compelled
citizens to report suspected homosexual activity to the police, triggering increased levels of prejudice,
violence and discrimination against the gay community. In August 2014, just a few months later, the
legislation was annulled: the law was passed without the requisite quorum, meaning that not enough MPs
were present at the vote.
p100
29-5-2015
101
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
P a g e 1 o f 3 Gay Ugandans face new threat from anti-homosexuality law | World news | The
Guardian5/1/2015http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/-sp-gay-ugandans-face-new-threat-fromant...
The judgment was received by activists with cheers of joy, even though the verdict was based on technical
grounds, rather than moral or ethical concerns.Its a bad habit, says politician Medard Bitekyerezo, a member of the ruling
NRM party, in an interview. I will never believe that homosexuality has something to do with genetics.
According to the politician, homosexuals are recruiting children with the intention of teaching them
homosexuality. He shows a photo of his children he keeps in his wallet: two sons and a daughter. I dont want anybody
to harm them.Bitekyerezo is one of the MPs pushing for new anti-homosexuality legislation which was
expected tobe brought to parliament before Christmas, but seems to be delayed. It not only curbs acts of
homosexuality, but also the promotion of it. If found guilty, those convicted could receive prison sentences of up to
seven years.
Outcry
Its purely about politics, says Nicholas Opiyo of the human rights organisation Chapter Four Uganda. Opiyo
contested the law in court last summer, which led to its annulment, and is getting ready for the next round.
According to him the whole mechanism surrounding the legislation is not really a legal matter, but a political
one. Members of parliament are jumping onto this as a popular cause for their own political survival.For
Museveni, this issue seems to have put him in a difficult position. Not only is he being pressured by his party
to reinstate the law, but he is also aware of foreign policy implications that may ensue.Startled by the
international outcry earlier this year, the president has urged his party not to rush. But this is not a sign of a
change of heart, says Bitekyerezo. Hes talking, but in his heart he knows what is there. Jesus knows what is
in the heart of the president. I do not think that the president of Uganda will allow anybody to come here and
destroy the children of Uganda.Kungu and Kiwagama await the possible new law with dread. But whether it
will be implemented or not, for Kungu the damage has already been done. People have fled the country, lost
their homes, lost their jobs you cant change that. Once very popular, the DJ has lost numerous gigs this year. Clubs
where she once performed have abandoned her. The morning my name was in the paper, I knew I would
lose a gig that same afternoon. People are afraid to be associated with me.Comparatively, Kiwagama has had more luck over the
last year. As a wedding planner, she relies on the advertising by word-of-mouth from happy clients. She knows her
job is not without irony, though: she will probably never enjoy the freedom of marrying the one she loves in her
own country.
Saskia Houttuin is a Dutch foreign news journalist with the programme VPRO Bureau Buitenland.
Topics
Uganda LGBT rights Africa Gay marriage Sexuality
END QUOTE
QUOTE
3:12-cv-30051 #149
Doc 149 - Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Protective Order
Doc 149 - Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Protective Order
More info:
Availability:
p101
29-5-2015
102
See more
See less
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of Abiding
Truth Ministries, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3-12-CV-30051-MAP PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY
OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY MATERIAL
Plaintiff Sexual Minorities Uganda (Plaintiff) respectfully moves the Court for an order amending the
Order Regarding Confidentiality of Certain Discovery Materials (Dkt. No. 106) (the Protective Order) so
that Plaintiff may designate a specific set of exceptionally sensitive documents for Attorneys Eyes Only
protection (the Motion). A memorandum of law, Declaration of Pam Spees, Declaration of Daniel W.
Beebe, and a Proposed Order are filed concurrently herewith.
2 Dated: May 4, 2015 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Daniel W. Beebe Mark S. Sullivan, admitted pro hac vice
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, admitted pro hac vi Daniel W. Beebe, admitted pro hac vice DORSEY &
WHITNEY, LLP 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York 10019-6119 Tel. 212-415-9200
sullivan.mark@dorsey.com Pamela C. Spees, admitted pro hac vice Baher Azmy, admitted pro hac
vice Jeena D. Shah, admitted pro hac vice
CENTER FOR CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Tel. 212-6146431 Fax 212-614-6499 pspees@ccrjustice.org Luke Ryan (MA Bar No. 664999) 100 Main Street, Third
Floor Northampton, MA 01060 Tel. 413-586-4800 Fax 413-582-6419 lryan@strhlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 37.1
Pursuant to L.R. D.Mass. 37.1, the parties conferred in good faith in an attempt to resolve this dispute prior to
seeking judicial intervention, as evidenced by the Declaration of Daniel W. Beebe. The parties have not,
however, been able to resolve this dispute.
/s/ Daniel W. Beebe
Daniel W. Beebe
May 4, 2015. Service will be effectuated by the Courts electronic notification system upon all counsel or
parties of record. /s/ Daniel W. Beebe Daniel W. Beebe
END QUOTE
Dont give the crap that the same happens in heterosexual families, because they ordinary do not
practice homosexuality as such!
50
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p102
29-5-2015

20150529-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Bill Shorten MP-Re Court Records of Children's Horror Stories Living With Homosexuals

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20150529-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Bill Shorten MP-Re Court Records of Children's Horror Stories Living With Homosexuals

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1

Mr Tony Abbott PM josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au

Ref; 20150529-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Bill Shorten MP-Re court records of

Further to my 25-5-029015 correspondence to you, which also can be downloaded from my

for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad.

Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 23:42 new

Constitutionalist & Consultant

...12 English Manif, http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/..........................................1 & n.2

..5 Alma Routsong, writing as Isabel Miller,

United States Court of Appeals

14-14061/14066 Amicus Brief of Robert Oscar Lopez in support of Defendants-Appellants

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Appeal Nos. 14-14061-AA, 14-14066-AA Brenner v. Secy, Fla. Dept of Health

Appeal Nos. 14-14061-AA, 14-14066-AA Brenner v. Secy, Fla. Dept of Health

.C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

...i TABLE OF CITATIONS

1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Who Was Involved

v Denise Shick, Denises Story

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

friend of his during 2012 and 2013.

*7) Jeremy Deck (raised by gay father)

Another said that by virtue

The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of peopl

The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between t

New Civil Rights Movement,

he was the one who filed a complaint with the

Who Was Involved

The references to personal revelations appeared again in letters at higher

Flag for inappropriate content|Add to collection

A. GOVERNMENTS INTEREST IN MARRIA

The Parent Trap

15, 16 U.N. Convention on the Rts. of the Child (1989)....................................................12

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

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

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

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

Marriage should just be about adult emotional bonds. If marriage is

30 CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC COMPLIANCE

v http://mftprogress.blogspot.ca/2009/07/camft-director-apologies-forarticles.html.......................................................................................16 & n.16 Families Like M ine,

, July 7, 2007, http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/by-reader-acclaim-man-sues-over-gay-marriage-questionon-bar-exam/

340 (2002), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full.......................26 & n.23

vii David Popenoe,

27-29 & n.29 Mark Regnerus,

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512728662 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/11/2014

connected to the GLBT communities, such as scholarships if one has a GLBT

censor truth about same-sex issues.

, July 7, 2007, http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/by-reader-acclaim-man-sues-over-gay-marriage-questionon-bar-exam/.

sex parenting studies fit all these criteria: random, population

In selection of the participants, often more

770 (July 2012),

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

SMUGS MOTION TO AMEND THE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER SHOULD BE DENIED

877-479-2484U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT www.uslegalsupport.com

877-479-2484U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT www.uslegalsupport.com

877-479-2484U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT www.uslegalsupport.com

877-479-2484U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT www.uslegalsupport.com

homosexuals or homosexual advocates?

877-479-2484U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT www.uslegalsupport.com

Here, SMUG seeks a drastic

likely in the hundreds