| Revision as of 03:12, 30 October 2005 editBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,450,125 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.← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:13, 30 October 2005 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,450,125 editsm →Facts: correct subheaderNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| 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.. | ||
| ==Opinion of the Court== | |||
| 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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 03:13, 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..
Opinion of the Court
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: