C. Amsterdam v. Neil Abercrombie
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
C, Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Hawaii’s Marriage Equality Act of 2013, We review de novo, Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Amsterdam’s action because Amsterdam’s moral and cultural objections to same-sex marriages are generalized grievances and are insufficient to confer Article III standing. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2662-63 , 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) (a “generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing”; “Article III standing is not to be placed in the hands of concerned bystanders who will use it simply as a vehicle for the vindication of value interests” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (constitutional standing requires an “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability).
Amsterdam’s contention that the district court ignored his amended reply is without merit.