| Revision as of 03:02, 30 October 2005 editBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,452,150 editsm →Implications for the Same-Sex marriage Debate: ital case name, correct cite← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:12, 30 October 2005 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,452,150 editsm total rewrite - any assertion that the decision was "affirmed" by the U.S. Supreme Court, or "expressly established" any constitutional law is simply a legal impossibility.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''''Baker v. Nelson''''', ] (] ]), was a case in which the ] upheld traditional opposite sex marriage. The ] declined to review that holding, ] (]). | '''''Baker v. Nelson''''', ] (] ]), was a case in which the ] upheld traditional opposite sex marriage. The ] declined to review that holding, ] (]), dismissing the appeal ''"for want of substantial federal question."''. | ||
| The case has been interpreted to indicate that a State's decision to limit marriage to One man and One Woman does not offend the ], ], ], or ] Amendments to the United States Constitution. | The case has been interpreted to indicate that a State's decision to limit marriage to One man and One Woman does not offend the ], ], ], or ] Amendments to the United States Constitution. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| == Facts == | == Facts == | ||
| In ] two Male Subjects, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a ] ] and were denied. The two filed litigation that made it's way before the Minnesota Supreme Court, citing violations of various Federal Constitutional Provisions. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Marriage in the State of Minnesota was limited to One man and One Woman. |
In ] two Male Subjects, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a ] ] and were denied. The two filed litigation that made it's way before the Minnesota Supreme Court, citing violations of various Federal Constitutional Provisions. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Marriage in the State of Minnesota was limited to One man and One Woman.. | ||
| ⚫ | Baker distinguishes the U.S. Supreme Court holding in '']'' 388 U.S. 1 (1967), upon which many proponents of same-sex marriage rely, as '''not''' being applicable to the same-sex marriage debate. ''Loving v. Virginia'' was decided on the grounds that it unconstitutionally prohibited marriages by invoking invidious racial discriminations. | ||
| == Result == | |||
| ⚫ | At issue in ''Loving'' was the Marriage between a man and a woman who happened to be of a different race. | ||
| Upon review, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal ''"for want of substantial federal question."'' 409 U.S. 810 (1972). | |||
| ⚫ | As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: ''"''Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a '''clear distinction''' between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."'' | ||
| Examining Precedent of the United States Supreme Court shows the clear and explicit directive that dismissals ''"for want of a substantial federal question"'' are '''binding precedents''' on all lower Federal Courts. | |||
| ''"ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial"''. ''Hicks v. Miranda'', 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) | |||
| ''"ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction."'' ''Mandel v. Bradley'', 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). | |||
| Lower Federal Courts are expressely prohibited from ruling in a way inconsistent with binding precedent. ''“ prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.”'' ''Mandel v. Bradley'', 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) | |||
| Baker is binding precedent and until overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. | |||
| == Implications for the Same-Sex marriage Debate == | |||
| ''Baker'' explicitly and with clarity addressed the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal protection claims in regards to this issue. These are the same claims being brought up by same-sex marriage proponents today. The High Court specifically affirmed that The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring by judicial legislation. | |||
| ''Baker'' establishes that: The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination... . It is also noted that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment. | |||
| ''Baker'' is not alone in this regard, indeed A long line of Court decisions make clear that: ''"he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same."'' '']'', 232 U.S. 138 (1914); '']'', 310 U.S. 141 (1940), and '']'', 316 U.S. 535 (1942) | |||
| ⚫ | Baker |
||
| ⚫ | At issue in ''Loving'' was the Marriage between |
||
| ⚫ | As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated |
||
| == ''Wilson v. Ake'' == | == ''Wilson v. Ake'' == | ||
| On January 19, 2005 in Florida, an attack against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, a statute, failed. Two Florida women, who married last summer in ], brought a federal lawsuit in ] seeking to force the state of Florida to recognize their marriage. U.S. District Court Judge ] ruled in '']'' that the lawsuit must be dismissed, and the judge upheld the constitutionality of the federal DOMA, which permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. | On January 19, 2005 in Florida, an attack against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, a statute, failed. Two Florida women, who married last summer in ], brought a federal lawsuit in ] seeking to force the state of Florida to recognize their marriage. U.S. District Court Judge ] ruled in '']'' that the lawsuit must be dismissed, and the judge upheld the constitutionality of the federal DOMA, which permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Judge Moody addressed the precedental value of ''Baker'' in his decision. | ||
| Judge Moody addressed the precedental value of ''Baker'' in his decision, clearly establishing that ''Baker v. Nelson'' was a binding decision from the United States Supreme Court on this issue, and that until overruled, remained the decision to which parties on either side of this debate should refer. | |||
| == External Links == | == External Links == | ||
Revision as of 03:12, 30 October 2005
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld traditional opposite sex marriage. The United States Supreme Court declined to review that holding, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissing the appeal "for want of substantial federal question.".
The case has been interpreted to indicate that a State's decision to limit marriage to One man and One Woman does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Facts
In 1971 two Male Subjects, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a Minnesota Marriage license and were denied. The two filed litigation that made it's way before the Minnesota Supreme Court, citing violations of various Federal Constitutional Provisions. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Marriage in the State of Minnesota was limited to One man and One Woman..
Baker distinguishes the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967), upon which many proponents of same-sex marriage rely, as not being applicable to the same-sex marriage debate. Loving v. Virginia was decided on the grounds that it unconstitutionally prohibited marriages by invoking invidious racial discriminations.
At issue in Loving was the Marriage between a man and a woman who happened to be of a different race.
As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: "Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
Wilson v. Ake
On January 19, 2005 in Florida, an attack against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, a statute, failed. Two Florida women, who married last summer in Massachusetts, brought a federal lawsuit in Tampa seeking to force the state of Florida to recognize their marriage. U.S. District Court Judge James S. Moody, Jr. ruled in Wilson v. Ake that the lawsuit must be dismissed, and the judge upheld the constitutionality of the federal DOMA, which permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Judge Moody addressed the precedental value of Baker in his decision.
External Links
http://www.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm http://www.domawatch.org/cases/minnesota/bakervnelson/BakervNelsonJurisdictionalStatement.pdf http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050119.pdf
Category: