Você está na página 1de 2

Hollingsworth v.

Perry (2013) Facts: In 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had to be included under the definition of marriage in the state. In response Proposition 8 was put on the ballot which would amend the states constitution to ban same-sex marriage. It passed, taking away the rights of same-sex couple to have their marriage recognized by the state. Two couples one of them gay, the other lesbian sued the state about the law. Issue: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ban the definition of marriage in the manner that California has done? JB: It does, all should have the right to marry. Holding: Rationale: Marriage is not simply symbolic there are clear and defined fiscal benefits to marriage. If this law where the same as in a case like Dale where it was not affecting a governmental function, or if marriage did not have such tangible benefits. But there are a large number f fiscal and otherwise benefits to a legally recognized marriage. In Loving v. Virginia the unanimous court said that marriage is one of the Basic civil rights of man, This right cannot be denied to people simply because the majority has a religious argument against it. The right to marriage can be interpreted as implicit in the concept of ordered liberty Griswold v. Connecticut Therefore it is protected in the Constitution and laws that infringe on this right are subject to some scrutiny. The case is worth at least the rational relations test, and Sexual orientation is a suspect class worth of probably heightened scrutiny. Romer invalidated the amendment in that case because it did not even pass the Rational relations test. Kennedy said. [t]he amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protect. It also imposes a special disability upon these persons alone. If the ban where truly about procreation, then why can the elderly and the infertile still marry. Clearly this law has another purpose. In Romer Kennedy wrote: Laws of the kind now before us raise the inventible inference that the disadvantages imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. The issue with a law that is meant to negatively target homosexuals is in this case as well. As the Ninth Circuit ruled in this case Prop 8 made gay and lesbians unequal to everyone else. They also found that by rescind[ing] access [of same sex couples] to the designation of marriage. They had made a law with a deliberate purpose of hurting same-sex couples. The idea that the decision should be based on the past is dealt with by Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas. Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its Manifold

possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once though necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, person in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. Without the same protection, they are denied equal protection as they are not equal to other couples in the eyes of the law The law cannot by its proponents be demonstrate to be narrowly drawn to affect a compelling state interest.

Você também pode gostar