Family Research Council

Amicus Brief: U.S. v. Windsor

By Family Research Council

No. 12-307


In the
Supreme Court of the United States

The United States of America, Petitioner

v.

Edith Schlain Windsor and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, Respondents

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


Brief Amicus Curiae of the Family Research Council in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE*

The Family Research Council (FRC) was founded in 1983 as an organization dedicated to the promotion of marriage and family and the sanctity of human life in national policy. Through publications, media appearances, public events, debates and testimony, FRC's team of policy experts reviews data and analyzes Congressional and executive branch proposals that affect the family. FRC also strives to assure that the unique attributes of the family are recognized and respected in the decisions of courts and regulatory bodies.

FRC champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the source of virtue and the wellspring of society. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian world view as the basis for a just, free and stable society. Consistent with its mission statement, FRC is committed to strengthening traditional families in America.

FRC actively supported the Defense of Marriage Act, the constitutionality of which is the subject of this litigation. FRC, therefore, has a particular interest in the outcome of this case. Requiring the United States to extend the federal benefits of marriage to couples who have entered into same-sex marriages would not promote any of the interests on the basis of which opposite-sex marriage is a protected social institution. And, for the reasons set forth herein, nothing in the Constitution, properly understood, compels that result. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should be reversed.