Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/In_re_Marriage_Cases> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 59 of
59
with 100 items per page.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases abstract "In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court found that two statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Proposition 22), were unconstitutional. The decision was the first in the United States to establish sexual orientation as a suspect classification. On June 4, 2008, the court denied a request for rehearing and a request to put a hold on the ruling, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled. The writ of mandate directing the state government to comply with the ruling and grant same-sex marriages was issued by the Superior Court of California on June 19, 2008.On November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which limited marriage under the California Constitution to opposite-sex couples. This decision did not disturb that part of the court's holding that gay men and lesbians constitute a suspect class for purposes of equal protection under Art. I § 7.The Supreme Court of California joined the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as the second state to have its highest court rule prohibitions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, although for somewhat different reasons. Later in 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a similar decision, as did the Iowa Supreme Court in April 2009 (see Varnum v. Brien).The judgment In re Marriage Cases was in part mooted by Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009).".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases wikiPageExternalLink sct_030408.mp3.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases wikiPageExternalLink 199950-1.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases wikiPageExternalLink S147999.pdf.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases wikiPageExternalLink BAGAVNC5K.DTL.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases wikiPageID "16173089".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases wikiPageRevisionID "602715432".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases arguedate "--03-04".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases argueyear "2008".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases associatejudges Carlos_R._Moreno.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases associatejudges Carol_Corrigan.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases associatejudges Joyce_L._Kennard.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases associatejudges Kathryn_Werdegar.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases associatejudges Marvin_R._Baxter.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases associatejudges Ming_Chin.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases chiefjudge Ronald_M._George.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases citations "25920.0".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases citations "43".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases concurrence "Kennard".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases dissent "Baxter".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases dissent "Corrigan".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases decidedate "--05-15".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases decideyear "2008".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases fullname "In re MARRIAGE CASES. [Six consolidated appeals.]".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases hasPhotoCollection In_re_Marriage_Cases.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases holding "#Sexual orientation is recognized as a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. #Offering a legal relationship called "marriage" to opposite-sex couples while consigning gay couples to "domestic partnerships" impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships equal dignity and respect. #The distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships risks the right to privacy regarding sexual orientation for those in domestic partnerships. #Both because a suspect class is targeted and because fundamental rights are impinged upon by the challenged provisions, the strict scrutiny standard of review applies, under which those provisions limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples must serve a compelling state interest and be necessary to serve such an interest. Neither being the case, laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are unconstitutional.".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases dissent "Chin".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases joinmajority "Kennard, Werdegar, Moreno".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases lawsapplied "Cal. Const. art. 1 §§ 1, 7, and Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300, 308.5".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases litigants "In re Marriage Cases".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases majority "George".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases prior "25920.0".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subsequent "--06-04".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:2008_in_LGBT_history.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:2008_in_United_States_case_law.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_litigation.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:California_state_case_law.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:Discrimination_in_the_United_States.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:LGBT_rights_in_California.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:Same-sex_union_case_law.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases subject Category:United_States_LGBT_rights_case_law.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type Abstraction100002137.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type Abstraction105854150.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type Cognition100023271.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type Concept105835747.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type Content105809192.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type Idea105833840.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type LGBTRightsInCalifornia.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type PsychologicalFeature100023100.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases type Right105174653.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases comment "In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. ".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases label "In re Marriage Cases".
- In_re_Marriage_Cases sameAs m.0463dq6.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases sameAs Q16847744.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases sameAs Q16847744.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases sameAs In_re_Marriage_Cases.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases wasDerivedFrom In_re_Marriage_Cases?oldid=602715432.
- In_re_Marriage_Cases isPrimaryTopicOf In_re_Marriage_Cases.