The memorandum analyzes whether a North Carolina statute banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. For issue I, the statute likely violates the state constitution based on a Massachusetts precedent establishing marriage as an inalienable right. For issue II, the statute likely violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment based on a Supreme Court case striking down bans on interracial marriage. The plaintiffs, a married same-sex couple, were denied a marriage license under the statute and are suing the state.
This document summarizes key information about same-sex unions and domestic partnership agreements. It discusses the status of same-sex unions internationally and in various U.S. states and jurisdictions. It also outlines important components and considerations for drafting cohabitation and domestic partnership agreements, including taxation issues, estate and trust matters, and potential pitfalls. Unsettled legal areas are also examined, such as the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act and recognition of foreign marriages and divorces.
"The International Affair" LA Lawyer Magazine -Feature Article - Immigration ...Heather Poole
Feature article discussing the legal intersection between federal immigration law and California family law, the limits to immigration sponsorship, the validity of divorce and marriage for federal immigration law purposes when it conflicts with CA law, and more. Los Angeles Lawyer Article June 2012 - by Immigration Attorney Heather Poole
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex MarriageingAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
This document is an entry from a United States District Court regarding three cases (Baskin v. Bogan, Fujii v. Pence, and Lee v. Pence) challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's same-sex marriage ban. The court provides background on Indiana's marriage laws and the plaintiffs in each case. It also lays out the standard for summary judgment. The court will consider the parties' cross motions for summary judgment to determine whether Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
FindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage ActLegalDocs
This document is a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in United States District Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The complaint argues that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman, exceeds congressional authority and violates principles of federalism by interfering with Massachusetts' sovereign right to define marriage within its borders. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of Section 3 against Massachusetts.
Pence Administration Agency compliance instructions on same-sex marriageAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
The document summarizes the status of same-sex marriages in Indiana according to recent court rulings and provides instructions to executive branch agencies. It outlines that a district court struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage but that ruling was stayed by an appeals court. However, the appeals court did recognize the marriage of one same-sex couple. The general counsel then instructs agencies to comply with the appeals court's stay of the district court ruling, and thus consider Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage as still in effect, except for recognizing the one couple's marriage as ordered. Agencies are told to contact the general counsel if they have any legal issues in applying this policy.
Jane Doe and Judy Roe, a same-sex couple in Michigan, each adopted children individually and now want to jointly adopt the children so they can be a legal family. However, Michigan law restricts adoption to married or single individuals, excluding unmarried couples like Jane and Judy. They have asked lawyers to determine if they can challenge this law. The lawyers analyze whether the law violates equal protection rights and which court could hear the case. They find the law will likely be upheld under a rational basis test since the state only needs a rational reason for the classification. Precedent from other states offers some guidance on these issues.
Estate Planning for the Non Traditional FamilyBarry Siegal
Historically, most estate plans revolved around the nuclear family structure of husband and wife who were married for the first time and children that were born of that marriage.
Over the course of the last 20 plus years, divorce rates have increased, more opposite-sex couples are opting to live together without getting married, and there is a greater awareness of same sex couples who are committed to each other. In these situations the traditional approach of estate planning is not always appropriate.
For purposes of this presentation, the “non-traditional family” consists of either a same sex couple, whether or not recognized as “married” for state law purposes, as well as the opposite sex couple who are committed to each other, but for one reason or another have decided not to get married.
1 Although opposite sex couples who have previously been married and have children by a prior marriage are also considered a “non-traditional family” and have unique issues, this relationship will not be addressed in this presentation.
How Does the Repeal of DOMA Affect Healthcarebenefitexpress
This webinar will review what an employer must do to comply with the Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It will review what procedures an employer has to put in place and which documents need to be changed.
This document summarizes key information about same-sex unions and domestic partnership agreements. It discusses the status of same-sex unions internationally and in various U.S. states and jurisdictions. It also outlines important components and considerations for drafting cohabitation and domestic partnership agreements, including taxation issues, estate and trust matters, and potential pitfalls. Unsettled legal areas are also examined, such as the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act and recognition of foreign marriages and divorces.
"The International Affair" LA Lawyer Magazine -Feature Article - Immigration ...Heather Poole
Feature article discussing the legal intersection between federal immigration law and California family law, the limits to immigration sponsorship, the validity of divorce and marriage for federal immigration law purposes when it conflicts with CA law, and more. Los Angeles Lawyer Article June 2012 - by Immigration Attorney Heather Poole
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex MarriageingAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
This document is an entry from a United States District Court regarding three cases (Baskin v. Bogan, Fujii v. Pence, and Lee v. Pence) challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's same-sex marriage ban. The court provides background on Indiana's marriage laws and the plaintiffs in each case. It also lays out the standard for summary judgment. The court will consider the parties' cross motions for summary judgment to determine whether Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
FindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage ActLegalDocs
This document is a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in United States District Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The complaint argues that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman, exceeds congressional authority and violates principles of federalism by interfering with Massachusetts' sovereign right to define marriage within its borders. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of Section 3 against Massachusetts.
Pence Administration Agency compliance instructions on same-sex marriageAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
The document summarizes the status of same-sex marriages in Indiana according to recent court rulings and provides instructions to executive branch agencies. It outlines that a district court struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage but that ruling was stayed by an appeals court. However, the appeals court did recognize the marriage of one same-sex couple. The general counsel then instructs agencies to comply with the appeals court's stay of the district court ruling, and thus consider Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage as still in effect, except for recognizing the one couple's marriage as ordered. Agencies are told to contact the general counsel if they have any legal issues in applying this policy.
Jane Doe and Judy Roe, a same-sex couple in Michigan, each adopted children individually and now want to jointly adopt the children so they can be a legal family. However, Michigan law restricts adoption to married or single individuals, excluding unmarried couples like Jane and Judy. They have asked lawyers to determine if they can challenge this law. The lawyers analyze whether the law violates equal protection rights and which court could hear the case. They find the law will likely be upheld under a rational basis test since the state only needs a rational reason for the classification. Precedent from other states offers some guidance on these issues.
Estate Planning for the Non Traditional FamilyBarry Siegal
Historically, most estate plans revolved around the nuclear family structure of husband and wife who were married for the first time and children that were born of that marriage.
Over the course of the last 20 plus years, divorce rates have increased, more opposite-sex couples are opting to live together without getting married, and there is a greater awareness of same sex couples who are committed to each other. In these situations the traditional approach of estate planning is not always appropriate.
For purposes of this presentation, the “non-traditional family” consists of either a same sex couple, whether or not recognized as “married” for state law purposes, as well as the opposite sex couple who are committed to each other, but for one reason or another have decided not to get married.
1 Although opposite sex couples who have previously been married and have children by a prior marriage are also considered a “non-traditional family” and have unique issues, this relationship will not be addressed in this presentation.
How Does the Repeal of DOMA Affect Healthcarebenefitexpress
This webinar will review what an employer must do to comply with the Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It will review what procedures an employer has to put in place and which documents need to be changed.
This case involves seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses and sued, arguing that New Jersey's marriage laws violated their equal protection and due process rights under the state constitution. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples but left it to the legislature to determine whether to amend marriage laws or create a separate statutory structure like civil unions. The court found no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution but that denying benefits to same-sex couples violated equal protection. The legislature was given 180 days to comply. Chief Justice Poritz concurred in part and dissented in part.
1. This document is a ruling from the Supreme Court of California regarding challenges to California statutes that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
2. The court must determine whether limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples while granting same-sex couples virtually all the same legal rights and obligations through domestic partnerships violates the state constitution.
3. The court concludes that the right to marry under the California constitution must be understood to apply to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. However, reserving the designation of "marriage" only for opposite-sex couples risks denying same-sex couples equal dignity and respect.
1. The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Section 3 defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman and denied federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their states.
2. The plaintiff, Edith Windsor, was legally married to her same-sex partner in Canada but was barred from claiming an estate tax exemption for surviving spouses under DOMA after her partner passed away. She paid estate taxes and sued for a refund.
3. While the plaintiff's case was pending, the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House
Mortgage Lending After Obergefell v HodgesBrad Luo
The Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry nationwide. This will impact residential mortgage lending by requiring lenders to treat same-sex married couples the same as heterosexual couples under federal law. Lenders will need to update their policies and procedures to comply with this ruling by ensuring same-sex couples have equal rights to title property and obtain mortgage loans. The ruling does not change existing CFPB guidance on treating same-sex marriages as valid nationwide.
This document provides an overview of LGBT relationships and divorce procedures in New Jersey. It discusses the history of relationships including domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex marriage. It also addresses common questions about these relationships. The document then reviews the procedural requirements for ending legal relationships in New Jersey, including filing for divorce or dissolution. Finally, it discusses some common legal issues that may arise in LGBT divorces under New Jersey family law, such as alimony, property distribution, and child custody.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitution. The Court found that (1) the statutory scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) sexual orientation should be considered a quasi-suspect classification under the state constitution, and (3) the state failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The Court reversed the trial court's ruling in favor of the state and directed the trial court to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs.
The document provides an outline and discussion of the legal history and status of same-sex marriage in the United States and Florida. It discusses key court cases that have framed the issue and the evolution of recognizing marriage equality across states from 2010 to 2015. It also outlines potential impacts if an upcoming Supreme Court case upholds bans on same-sex marriage, such as same-sex couples in affected states losing marital rights and benefits.
The North Carolina State Board of Education filed a motion seeking relief from a 2002 court order requiring it to provide all students access to a sound basic education as defined by the state constitution. The court denied the motion, finding that while legislative reforms have been enacted, the State Board failed to present convincing evidence that the reforms have substantially complied with the constitutional mandate or moved the state closer to ensuring all children receive their right to an education meeting minimum standards of quality. Test score data and other evidence in the court record show that hundreds of thousands of students continue to be denied their right to a sound basic education. The court found the State Board's motion was untimely given it relied on reforms from 2012 but was not filed until 2017.
Are you a military servicemember with children? Or are you married to a servicemember and want to understand what happens with child custody?
In this guide for Military Parents in New Jersey, find out how state and federal laws and branch policies affect child custody, visitation and support for military families:
- What are military parent's rights in New Jersey?
- What protections are there for servicemembers on active duty in Child Custody cases?
- What happens with servicemember's child custody and parenting time?
- What about military benefits for the children of servicemembers?
- and more.
The document provides information on the differences between judicial separation and divorce under Hindu law and the Special Marriage Act, including grounds and processes for each. It can be summarized as follows:
1) Judicial separation suspends conjugal rights between parties for some time, allowing living apart, while divorce fully dissolves the marriage allowing parties to remarry.
2) Grounds for judicial separation and divorce are largely the same, including adultery, cruelty, desertion, religious conversion, and illness. Additional grounds apply to wives.
3) While judicial separation aims to potentially reunite parties, divorce permanently ends the marriage relationship and frees parties to remarry under law.
Article 1-26
Disclaimer:
All of the pictures and pieces of information on this site are the property of their respective owners. I do not hold any copyright in regards to these pictures and information. These pictures have been collected from different public sources including various websites, considered to be in the public domain. If anyone has any objection to display of any picture, image or information, it may be brought to my notice by sending an email (contact me) & the disputed media will be removed immediately, after verification of the claim.
This document discusses the framework used to determine if a marriage is valid for U.S. immigration purposes. There are three components to the framework: 1) the marriage must be valid under the laws of where it was celebrated; 2) it cannot violate the public policy of the state of residence or intended residence; and 3) the marriage must be bona fide for immigration purposes rather than fraudulent. The framework is applied to analyze if a marriage meets the validity requirements regardless of whether the U.S. or state laws formally define marriage.
Divorce under Hindu law can be granted on three grounds: fault, mutual consent, or irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Fault-based divorce requires proving offenses like adultery, cruelty, desertion, etc. by one spouse. Consent divorce requires mutual agreement. Irretrievable breakdown divorce applies when spouses have lived separately for years and reconciliation is not possible. Additional grounds for wives include pre-existing polygamous marriages, certain physical/sexual offenses by the husband, and repudiation of underage marriages.
This document discusses the intersection of disability and queer identity development for students. It notes that LGBTQ students with disabilities face discrimination that can negatively impact their identity development and success in college. Creating partnerships between queer resource centers and disability services is one strategy to create a more welcoming environment. While these students have similar developmental concerns to other students, they also have unique challenges due to societal oppression related to their sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status, and the intersection of these identities. The document reviews literature on LGBTQ and disability identity development theories and the lack of research specifically on the intersection of these identities. It concludes that identity development occurs over time in a fluid process for both LGBTQ and disability identities.
Πώς τα Κοινωνικά Δίκτυα επηρεάζουν το SEO της ιστοσελίδας σαςSkourlis Dimitris
Η παρουσίαση της εταιρείας emads για το σεμινάριο SocialBiz για μικρές και μεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, με θέμα "πώς τα κοινωνικά δίκτυα επηρεάζουν την κατάταξη της εταιρικής σας ιστοσελίδας στα αποτελέσματα των μηχανών αναζήτησης".
PPKn - Menyemai kesadaran konstitusional dalam kehidupan bernegaraYasmine Rusnandha
Dokumen tersebut membahas tentang lembaga-lembaga negara Indonesia sesuai UUD 1945 seperti MPR, DPR, DPD, Presiden, BPK, MA, MK, dan KY beserta tugas dan wewenang masing-masing.
This case involves seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses and sued, arguing that New Jersey's marriage laws violated their equal protection and due process rights under the state constitution. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples but left it to the legislature to determine whether to amend marriage laws or create a separate statutory structure like civil unions. The court found no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution but that denying benefits to same-sex couples violated equal protection. The legislature was given 180 days to comply. Chief Justice Poritz concurred in part and dissented in part.
1. This document is a ruling from the Supreme Court of California regarding challenges to California statutes that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
2. The court must determine whether limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples while granting same-sex couples virtually all the same legal rights and obligations through domestic partnerships violates the state constitution.
3. The court concludes that the right to marry under the California constitution must be understood to apply to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. However, reserving the designation of "marriage" only for opposite-sex couples risks denying same-sex couples equal dignity and respect.
1. The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Section 3 defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman and denied federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their states.
2. The plaintiff, Edith Windsor, was legally married to her same-sex partner in Canada but was barred from claiming an estate tax exemption for surviving spouses under DOMA after her partner passed away. She paid estate taxes and sued for a refund.
3. While the plaintiff's case was pending, the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House
Mortgage Lending After Obergefell v HodgesBrad Luo
The Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry nationwide. This will impact residential mortgage lending by requiring lenders to treat same-sex married couples the same as heterosexual couples under federal law. Lenders will need to update their policies and procedures to comply with this ruling by ensuring same-sex couples have equal rights to title property and obtain mortgage loans. The ruling does not change existing CFPB guidance on treating same-sex marriages as valid nationwide.
This document provides an overview of LGBT relationships and divorce procedures in New Jersey. It discusses the history of relationships including domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex marriage. It also addresses common questions about these relationships. The document then reviews the procedural requirements for ending legal relationships in New Jersey, including filing for divorce or dissolution. Finally, it discusses some common legal issues that may arise in LGBT divorces under New Jersey family law, such as alimony, property distribution, and child custody.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitution. The Court found that (1) the statutory scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) sexual orientation should be considered a quasi-suspect classification under the state constitution, and (3) the state failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The Court reversed the trial court's ruling in favor of the state and directed the trial court to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs.
The document provides an outline and discussion of the legal history and status of same-sex marriage in the United States and Florida. It discusses key court cases that have framed the issue and the evolution of recognizing marriage equality across states from 2010 to 2015. It also outlines potential impacts if an upcoming Supreme Court case upholds bans on same-sex marriage, such as same-sex couples in affected states losing marital rights and benefits.
The North Carolina State Board of Education filed a motion seeking relief from a 2002 court order requiring it to provide all students access to a sound basic education as defined by the state constitution. The court denied the motion, finding that while legislative reforms have been enacted, the State Board failed to present convincing evidence that the reforms have substantially complied with the constitutional mandate or moved the state closer to ensuring all children receive their right to an education meeting minimum standards of quality. Test score data and other evidence in the court record show that hundreds of thousands of students continue to be denied their right to a sound basic education. The court found the State Board's motion was untimely given it relied on reforms from 2012 but was not filed until 2017.
Are you a military servicemember with children? Or are you married to a servicemember and want to understand what happens with child custody?
In this guide for Military Parents in New Jersey, find out how state and federal laws and branch policies affect child custody, visitation and support for military families:
- What are military parent's rights in New Jersey?
- What protections are there for servicemembers on active duty in Child Custody cases?
- What happens with servicemember's child custody and parenting time?
- What about military benefits for the children of servicemembers?
- and more.
The document provides information on the differences between judicial separation and divorce under Hindu law and the Special Marriage Act, including grounds and processes for each. It can be summarized as follows:
1) Judicial separation suspends conjugal rights between parties for some time, allowing living apart, while divorce fully dissolves the marriage allowing parties to remarry.
2) Grounds for judicial separation and divorce are largely the same, including adultery, cruelty, desertion, religious conversion, and illness. Additional grounds apply to wives.
3) While judicial separation aims to potentially reunite parties, divorce permanently ends the marriage relationship and frees parties to remarry under law.
Article 1-26
Disclaimer:
All of the pictures and pieces of information on this site are the property of their respective owners. I do not hold any copyright in regards to these pictures and information. These pictures have been collected from different public sources including various websites, considered to be in the public domain. If anyone has any objection to display of any picture, image or information, it may be brought to my notice by sending an email (contact me) & the disputed media will be removed immediately, after verification of the claim.
This document discusses the framework used to determine if a marriage is valid for U.S. immigration purposes. There are three components to the framework: 1) the marriage must be valid under the laws of where it was celebrated; 2) it cannot violate the public policy of the state of residence or intended residence; and 3) the marriage must be bona fide for immigration purposes rather than fraudulent. The framework is applied to analyze if a marriage meets the validity requirements regardless of whether the U.S. or state laws formally define marriage.
Divorce under Hindu law can be granted on three grounds: fault, mutual consent, or irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Fault-based divorce requires proving offenses like adultery, cruelty, desertion, etc. by one spouse. Consent divorce requires mutual agreement. Irretrievable breakdown divorce applies when spouses have lived separately for years and reconciliation is not possible. Additional grounds for wives include pre-existing polygamous marriages, certain physical/sexual offenses by the husband, and repudiation of underage marriages.
This document discusses the intersection of disability and queer identity development for students. It notes that LGBTQ students with disabilities face discrimination that can negatively impact their identity development and success in college. Creating partnerships between queer resource centers and disability services is one strategy to create a more welcoming environment. While these students have similar developmental concerns to other students, they also have unique challenges due to societal oppression related to their sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status, and the intersection of these identities. The document reviews literature on LGBTQ and disability identity development theories and the lack of research specifically on the intersection of these identities. It concludes that identity development occurs over time in a fluid process for both LGBTQ and disability identities.
Πώς τα Κοινωνικά Δίκτυα επηρεάζουν το SEO της ιστοσελίδας σαςSkourlis Dimitris
Η παρουσίαση της εταιρείας emads για το σεμινάριο SocialBiz για μικρές και μεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, με θέμα "πώς τα κοινωνικά δίκτυα επηρεάζουν την κατάταξη της εταιρικής σας ιστοσελίδας στα αποτελέσματα των μηχανών αναζήτησης".
PPKn - Menyemai kesadaran konstitusional dalam kehidupan bernegaraYasmine Rusnandha
Dokumen tersebut membahas tentang lembaga-lembaga negara Indonesia sesuai UUD 1945 seperti MPR, DPR, DPD, Presiden, BPK, MA, MK, dan KY beserta tugas dan wewenang masing-masing.
Dokumen tersebut menjelaskan tentang pengertian peraturan perundang-undangan nasional di Indonesia serta tata urutan dan proses pembuatannya. Terdapat berbagai jenis peraturan perundang-undangan seperti UUD, Ketetapan MPR, UU, PP, Perpres, Perda Provinsi, dan Perda Kabupaten/Kota yang memiliki proses pembentukan masing-masing.
Sexual orientation, policy, and the public workplacetaratoot
This document discusses policies related to sexual orientation and the public workplace. It outlines that there are currently no federal laws protecting against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Some key topics covered include the history of laws regarding same-sex marriage and civil unions, court cases related to discrimination and privacy, and the debate around the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The document also examines public opinion on issues like same-sex marriage over time.
The author argues against same-sex marriage based on religious and social reasons. They believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman, as defined by older religions. The author agrees with a sociologist that legalizing same-sex marriage will destabilize the family and society. The author also argues that adoption should only be possible when one partner is the biological parent, and they agree with a doctor that parenting by same-sex couples can be harmful.
The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to provide equal protection under the law to all people born in the United States. However, early decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson established the "separate but equal" doctrine, allowing racial segregation. Later rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education overturned this doctrine, declaring separate facilities inherently unequal and requiring integration of public schools. Subsequent legislation and court decisions further expanded civil rights by prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations, voting, education, employment, and access for those with disabilities.
Law as a Process of Human Communication: Marriage and Human Rights Values Rel...Dr. Aitza Haddad Nuñez
The document discusses several key Supreme Court cases related to marriage from 1967 to 2003. Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down laws banning interracial marriage. Baker v. Nelson (1971) was one of the first cases to address same-sex marriage, with the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that marriage was restricted to opposite-sex couples. The era saw a shift from addressing miscegenation to addressing privacy in marriage and relationships, laying the groundwork for future same-sex marriage cases.
Obergefell v Hodges same-sex marriage onlyPaul Croushore
The Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, finding that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. This ruling effectively federalized marriage, which had long been regulated by state law, and opened the door for similar arguments regarding other groups that feel disrespected or subordinate. The decision was highly controversial and generated multiple dissenting opinions.
The 14th Amendment established that all people born in the US are citizens and entitled to equal protection under the law. However, several Supreme Court cases interpreted it in a way that allowed for legal segregation, such as Plessy v. Ferguson which established the "separate but equal" doctrine. It wasn't until Brown v. Board of Education overturned this decision that schools were integrated. Later civil rights legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in public places and further expanded equal protection.
Obergefell v. Hodges: Michigan Probate and Estate Planning Issues Impacting S...Howard Collens
With the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landscape in Michigan probate and estate planning has changed. This presentation explores areas of impact.
This document discusses how rights can sometimes conflict with the common good of society. It notes that civil liberties, such as the right to protest or free speech, may conflict with maintaining public order or safety. The document provides examples of how civil liberties and the common good could clash in scenarios involving a public demonstration blocking traffic, loud noise from a neighbor's stereo at night, and the government restricting war-related information. It examines how to balance individual rights with the interests of the wider community.
The National Federation of Democratic Women supports ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to guarantee equal rights regardless of sex. While some laws aim to prevent discrimination, they are inconsistent and can be repealed. The last three states ratified the ERA in 2017-2020, but the Archivist has not certified it due to a Trump administration opinion claiming issues with the ratification timeline. Supporters argue the 38 state threshold has been met and are appealing the lower court's dismissal. The NFDW calls on Congress and the Archivist to recognize the ERA as the 28th Amendment to solidify equal rights protections for all.
Jane Doe and Judy Roe, a same-sex couple in Michigan, each have children they adopted individually and now want to jointly adopt their children. They have questions about whether Michigan's adoption statute allowing only married or single individuals to adopt violates equal protection, and if the courts could interpret the statute to allow their joint adoption. The memo analyzes these issues, concluding that while an equal protection challenge would likely fail under rational basis review, the courts could interpret the statute liberally to allow the joint adoption, following other states' precedent. The circuit court would have jurisdiction over the case.
The document discusses same-sex marriage developments around the world. It notes that Canada, Massachusetts, and California court rulings found bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Legislation in some US states and countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and South Africa have legalized same-sex marriage, while others like the UK offer civil partnerships. Internationally the trend is toward recognizing same-sex relationships, but Australia lags behind other liberal nations in this regard.
The document discusses the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was enacted in 1996 and defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It argues DOMA is discriminatory and takes away over 1,000 federal benefits from same-sex couples. While supporters claim DOMA protects traditional marriage, the document argues there is no evidence legalizing same-sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriages. It concludes that DOMA marginalizes the LGBT community and advocates for its repeal.
Rodriguez 1
Diego Rodriguez
Winston Padgett
Government 2305, Sect. 049
Monday, April 14, 2014
Same Sex Marriage: Constitutional and Cultural Considerations Outline
Same sex marriage - is a highly controversial topic in the United States. It impacts our culture and, in many regards to religious beliefs
I. Why and how the U.S. Supreme Court has issued two important rulings that opened up room in constitutional jurisprudence for consideration of gay rights.
A. Yet the vast majority of other states have adopted statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Do they right to revolt against government tyranny and fight for their rights
B. What states approve of same sex marriage? Which states deny same sex marriage? How has this happen?
II. In this Article, I argue that an individual who marries in her state of domicile and then migrates to a mini-defense of marriage act state has a significant liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the ongoing existence of her marriage.
A. Section 1 ARTICLE IV “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
B. Courts generally agreed right applies to individuals
C. Government permitted to limit some rights of marriage by same sex.
D. Questions today center around: What bans our enforced presently on same sex marriage? Should it be mandatory for gays that want marriage neutral principle grounded in core Due Process Clause values: protection of reasonable expectations and of marital and family privacy, respect for established legal and social practices, and rejection of the idea that a state can sever a legal family relationship merely by operation of law?
III. Court cases outcome for gay marriages
A. The article cites a survey on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the U.S. which found that 50% of the American people are in favor of the amendment banning same-sex marriages while 47% strongly opposed.
B. This survey was conducted by Gallup Poll Ltd. conducted on May 8-11, 2006. Findings also revealed that 66% of the Republicans favor the constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution while 55% of the Democrats opposed the amendment.
C. United States v. Windsor, a narrow majority ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which comprehensively defined "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law to exclude same-sex partners, was unconstitutional.
D. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court let stand a trial-court ruling invalidating California's Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage. Will Fourteenth Amendment still not incorporated to protect gay marriage
IV. There have been and there will continue to be disagreements about the merits of same-sex marriage. But disagree ...
Sabrina Winston - Same-Sex Marriage Thesis PresentationChavez Schools
Sabrina Winston is a senior graduating from Chavez Capitol Hill High School. She is a member of the Chavez “We the People” debate team that took 1st place in the school-wide competition and 2nd place in the district competition. Sabrina’s has gained work experience with organizations such as Metro Teen aids and the D.C. Department of Public Works. Miss Winston is interested in pursuing an undergraduate degree in political science and will be attending Potomac State College in the fall.
This case concerns the constitutionality of Florida's ban on adoption by homosexual persons. Under Florida law at the time, homosexual persons were allowed to serve as foster parents but were barred from being considered for adoption. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that there was no rational basis for this distinction and that the statute banning adoption by homosexual persons was therefore unconstitutional. The court found no evidence to support distinguishing between homosexual persons serving as foster parents or guardians versus adoptive parents, where the adoption would be in the best interests of the children. The Department of Children and Families appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.
DOMA was a 1996 law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Section 3 of DOMA specifically prohibited this recognition. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 was unconstitutional as it violated equal protection. While the federal government must now recognize same-sex marriages, states are not required to perform or acknowledge them. The ruling impacts a number of federal benefits provided to married couples.
This document discusses Virginia's laws banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. It outlines that Section 15-A of Virginia's constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It also discusses legislation passed by the Virginia legislature reaffirming this definition of marriage. However, the document presents opposing arguments that these laws are unconstitutional and violate individuals' rights to equal treatment under the 14th Amendment and Virginia's Bill of Rights.
News Flash January 20 2015 - Supreme Court Agrees to Address Same Sex MarriageAnnette Wright, GBA, GBDS
On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will take up the issue whether persons of the same gender have the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.
National Defense Authorization Act 2012 Article Assignment Nullification by S...Wayne Williams
Article Assignment; Students will read the article on nullification and how South Carolina is pushing back against the NDAA 2012 using the 10th Amendment.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss a joint bankruptcy petition filed by a same-sex couple. The court found that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional as it violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. Since the couple's marriage was valid under California law at the time, the court ruled they had the same rights as other legally married couples to file jointly. This decision sets precedent that same-sex couples have equal rights in bankruptcy proceedings.
Protecting Defendants
UAB PSC 381 Bill of Rights
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Bowers v. Hardick
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
This case concerns an appeal of a negligence claim by James Harris against Perisher Blue Pty Ltd relating to injuries sustained during a beginner ski lesson. The appeal court judges Sackville AJA and Young AJA both found that the trial judge had appropriately considered causation under the Civil Liability Act, and that Perisher's negligence was the cause of Harris' injuries. Specifically, they determined that proper precautions by Perisher would have avoided the harm to Harris. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and Harris' damages award upheld.
This document discusses the evolution of gay marriage debates and legalization efforts from 1999-2009. It outlines key Supreme Court rulings like Lawrence v. Texas that impacted LGBTQ rights. It also summarizes the varying status of same-sex marriage and civil unions across US states over the past decade since Michael Warner's book "The Trouble With Normal" was published. Public opinion polls showing increasing support for LGBTQ rights are also referenced.
Intro to u.s. law prof. betsy candlersummer 2018class ssuser47f0be
This document provides an overview of an introductory law class covering individual rights and equal protection and fundamental rights under U.S. law. It summarizes 7 key Supreme Court cases related to marriage, same-sex relationships, and discrimination. It also reviews different standards of legal review including rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny applied under equal protection and substantive due process analyses. The class will examine these standards and their application in cases related to marriage, privacy, sexual orientation, race, gender, and other classifications.
The court reviewed a case brought by Kenyan victims and family members of victims of the 1998 US embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya against Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Afghanistan. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Afghanistan, finding that Afghanistan's alleged conduct did not constitute "commercial activity" within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against bin Laden and al Qaeda, finding that the District Court had personal jurisdiction over them based on their purposefully directing their terrorist activities at US residents, giving them fair warning that they could be haled into court in the US.
The document discusses the evolution of the gay marriage debate from 1999-2009. It summarizes Michael Warner's argument from his 1999 book that gay marriage would create a dual-class system and continue inequality. However, it notes that the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws, fundamentally changed the legal arguments around regulating relationships between consenting adults. The document also reviews the status of gay marriage and civil unions in various states in the decade since Warner's book was published.
1. 1
OFFICE RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
TO: Maria Warren, District Attorney
FROM: Cameron Breither, Intern
RE: Langley v. North Carolina
CASE: 80A957
RE: Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with a
concentration on homosexuality
Statement of Assignment
You have asked me to prepare a memorandum addressing the following questions: Is the North
Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12, that states that “marriages between
persons of the same gender are not valid,” invalidated by the North Carolina state constitution?
Does the North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12 violate the Due
Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States
Constitution?
Issues
Issue I: Under Article I, section 1, of the state constitution is North Carolina General Statute
Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12 invalidated?
2. 2
Issue II: Under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States, is the North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1,
section 12 unconstitutional?
Brief Answer
Issue I: Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court in Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health,
798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), held that “the denial of marriage licenses to samesex couples
violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was
not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Similar to Massachusetts, the North Carolina
state constitution states in Article I, section 1 that “We hold it to be selfevident that all persons
are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of
happiness.” According to stare decisis, the holding of the Goodridge case should be fully
applicable to North Carolina and the set precedent should prevail.
Issue II: Yes. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), that that the Commonwealth of Virginia violated both the Due
3. 3
Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by banning
interracial marriage. The court held that “the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the
freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot
be infringed by the State.” These same protections can easily be factored in when discussing
samesex marriage and discrimination based on both sex and gender, leaving a great deal of
room to apply the rationale of the Court in Loving v. Virginia to the North Carolina General
Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12.
Facts
The plaintiffs, Matthew Langley and Alexander Davila, both men, were residents of North
Carolina who had been married in April 2010 in Connecticut, having left North Carolina to
evade a North Carolina general statute that bans samesex marriages in North Carolina and state
that marriages performed outofstate will not be recognized. Upon returning to North Carolina,
they were not allowed to file state taxes as married due to North Carolina General Statute
Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12, which states that “marriages, whether created by common law,
contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are
not valid in North Carolina.” Wishing to fully enjoy the perks of marriage, Langley and Davila
applied for a marriage license in New Hanover County, North Carolina and were denied under
North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12.
Believing that the North Carolina statute was unjust, the couple filed suit against the state
claiming that the statute violated the North Carolina state constitution and both the Due Process
4. 4
Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
Analysis
Issue 1
The rule of law governing equality in North Carolina is Article I, section 1, of the state
constitution which provides, in part, “certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty,
the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.” Neither the
constitution nor any state statutes go into depth when defining the specifics of these rights. While
there are statues defining the terms and conditions of marriage in the state of North Carolina,
there is no mention if marriage is, or is not, included in these inalienable rights. There is,
however, Massachusetts case law that clarifies these rights.
The Massachusetts case that establishes the standard for marriage as an inalienable right
is Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003). In this case
the plaintiffs were denied marriage licenses because the state of Massachusetts did not recognize
samesex marriages. The plaintiffs sued the state health department and commissioner on the
basis that their exclusion from access to marriage licenses violated Massachusetts law. In ruling
that the denial of a marriage license to the plaintiffs involved a denial of individual liberty and
equality, the court held that the denial of marriage licenses to samesex couples violated Article
CVI of the Massachusetts’ state constitution.
The rule of law defining marriage in Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health is
5. 5
so broadly stated that it can be easily applied to any number of marriage equality situations,
including the situation presented in our current case. In our case, the plaintiffs were denied a
marriage license on similar grounds and the North Carolina state constitution Article I, section 1
guarantees similar provisions to those found in Massachusetts state constitution Article CVI.
Therefore, it appears that the denial of a marriage license to Mr. Langley and Mr. Davila was in
direct violation of the North Carolina state constitution.
However, not all marriage denials are in violation of the state constitution’s equality
clause. There are several exceptions. One exception is when the marriage applicant is marrying a
person who is a direct blood relative. This exception can be found in the marriage laws of all 50
states and can be found in North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, Section 4 which
states that marriages between direct blood relatives is invalid. This provision has been put in
place to prevent incest and to prevent potential birth defects in children. The second exception to
this rule is when the marriage applicant does not meet the proper age requirements. North
Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, Section 2 states that it is unlawful for a person
under the age of 14 to marry due to the fact that they cannot legally consent.
In our case, the plaintiffs are neither direct blood relatives nor under the legal age to
marry. If either had been true of our plaintiffs, under the North Carolina General Statute Chapter
51, Article 1, Section 2 and Section 4, the Register of Deeds would have had the authority to
deny the plaintiffs’ marriage application and would have been within the meaning of the
constitution. The only reason for denial comes under the North Carolina General Statute Chapter
51, Article 1, section 12.
6. 6
In addition, another foreseeable obstacle to our case is that not all courts believe that
samesex marriage is a civil right and violates the Due Process Clause and Equality Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. This inconsistency can be found in several landmark court cases, most
notably in Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006). In this case, 44 samesex couples
filed a lawsuit claiming that the restriction of marriage to oppositesex couples was invalid under
the New York state constitution. The court held that “the New York Constitution does not
compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages
should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.”
In our case, just as in Hernandez, the plaintiffs claim that the restriction of marriage to
oppositesex couples is invalid under the North Carolina state constitution. There is evidence that
our case can play out in either the direction of Hernandez or Goodridge. Both cases dealt with
nearly identical situations and complaints but resulted in drastically different outcomes.
There is no case or statutory law in North Carolina that contradicts or limits the North
Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12. The only counterargument possible
is that under the ruling in Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, North Carolina
General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12 violates the individual liberty and equality
provisions in the North Carolina state Constitution. There is no evidence in the case file that
indicates a problem in this regard. See the Recommendations section below.
Issue 2
7. 7
The rule of law governing due process and equal rights is the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution which states that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Neither the constitution nor any state statutes go
into depth when defining the specifics of these rights. The clause does not define what
constitutes liberty nor does it deal with the more specific topic of marriage; therefore, it is
necessary to refer to case law for better guidance.
A case in which the United States Supreme Court has defined marriage is Loving v.
Virginia. In this case, the police arrested the plaintiffs for violating a Virginia statute that banned
marriages between any white person and any nonwhite person. The defendants were
additionally charged with miscegenation, which was punishable by a prison sentence between
one and five years. Several years later the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on the
couple’s behalf calling for the judgment to be vacated on the grounds that the statutes violated
the Fourteenth Amendment. The case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court which
ruled in favor of the couple. In overturning the defendant’s convictions, the court ruled that
marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man and to deny people the freedom to marry is a
direct violation of the principle of equality that the Fourteenth Amendment is centered on.
While there are no decided cases that deal with the issue of samesex marriage and the
Fourteenth Amendment there is one that is currently ongoing. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.
3d 1147 (2010), is currently being argued in U.S. District Court and is a parallel case to ours.
8. 8
Perry is the result of the court’s holding in In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d
683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008). The court held in In re Marriage Cases that “statutes that treat persons
differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny” and
recognized sexual orientation as a suspect class for the purposes of the California state
constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Perry is currently arguing for the holding of the court in
In re Marriage Cases to be applied to the United States Constitution.
In our case, just as in Loving, the state bans marriages between people of the samesex.
While there is no criminal law that our clients have violated the Loving case can still be applied.
There is ample evidence supporting our plaintiff’s claim if we use similar logic to that presented
in Loving. If the rule of law presented in Loving is followed, it appears that there is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that the North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1,
section 12 violates the Fourteenth Amendment in a manner similar to Section 2058 of the
Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from marrying.
There is no case or statutory law in North Carolina that contradicts or limits the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The best argument possible for this
case is that under the ruling if Loving v. Virginia, the North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51,
Article 1, section 12 violates the Fourteenth Amendment under the belief that marriage is a civil
right. There is no evidence in the case file that indicates any issue in this regard. The only
foreseeable issue is that in our case the plaintiffs were applying for a second marriage license
after already obtaining one in Connecticut. See the Recommendations section below for more
information.
9. 9
Conclusion
Article I, section 1, of the North Carolina state constitution states that “We hold it to be
selfevident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own
labor, and the pursuit of happiness.” The case of Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public
Health states that the denial of marriage licenses to gay couples was a direct violation of the
Massachusetts state constitution’s guarantee of liberty and equality. In our case, the defendants
were denied a marriage license under North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1,
section 12. Therefore, under the ruling in Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health it
appears that the North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12 is
unconstitutional.
The Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States hold that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In Loving v. Virginia, the court held that “…The
freedom to marry, or not marry…resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the
State.” While Loving v. Virginia deals with discrimination on the level of race, it can easily be
applied to the ongoing discrimination against couples of the same sex and gender. Therefore, it
appears that the North Carolina General Statute Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12 is indeed
10. 10
unconstitutional.
Recommendations
1. We should determine if there are any other matters that affect the legality of the
denial of the marriage license by the Register of Deeds of New Hanover County,
North Carolina. If the application for the license was in some way defective and was
denied for reasons other than the sex and gender of the applicants, the precedent
established in Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health may not apply.
2. We need to conduct further investigation to determine if there are any standing laws
that prevent a person from obtaining multiple marriage licenses from different states
with the same person. Research on the subject has lead me to believe that there is no
such law preventing multiple marriages to the same person in different states – which
means that the marriage of Matthew Langley and Alexander Davila in Connecticut
and North Carolina would have been legal if not for North Carolina General Statute
Chapter 51, Article 1, section 12.
11. 11
Bibliography
Aaron X. Fellmeth, State Regulation of Sexuality in International Human Rights Law and
Theory, 50 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 797, 800936 (2008).
Bryan K. Fair, The Ultimate Association: SameSex Marriage and the Battle Against Jim Crow’s
Other Cousin, 63 U. Miami L. Rev. 269, 26999 (2008).
Cary Franklin, The AntiStereotyping Principle in Constitutional Sex Discrimination Law, 85
N.Y.U. L. Rev. 83, 84173 (2010).
Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)
Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006)
In re Marriage Cases 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008)
Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
N.C. CONST. art. I, § 1.
M.A. CONST. art CVI.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F. 3d 1147 (2010)