| Revision as of 08:00, 30 October 2005 editBluebot (talk | contribs)349,597 editsm Fixed See also/External links error(s).← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:51, 3 November 2005 edit undoMateo SA (talk | contribs)5,758 edits significant copyediting--correcting poor grammar, formatting, capitalization, etc., making descriptions more direct and NPOVNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''''Baker v. Nelson''''' |
'''''Baker v. Nelson''','' ] (] ]), was a case in which the ] ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the ]. 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. | |||
| == Facts == | == Facts == | ||
| In ], two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied to the clerk of ]'s Hennepin County District Court, Gerald R. Nelson, for a ]. Nelson denied the request on the sole grounds that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell then sued Nelson, arguing that Minnesota law permitted same-sex marriages, and that Nelson's interpretation that it did not violated their rights under the ] and ] Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically directed that they ''not'' be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the ], ], Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution". | |||
| 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 |
==Opinion of the court== | ||
| ⚫ | The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in '']'' 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the ''Baker'' case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "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". | ||
| 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. | |||
| == Subsequent history == | |||
| At issue in ''Loving'' was the Marriage between a man and a woman who happened to be of a different race. | |||
| ⚫ | === ''Wilson v. Ake'' === | ||
| ''Baker'' was cited as precedent in the ], ] case of ''Wilson v. Ake,'' argued before ], of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In that case, two Florida women, married the previous summer in ], sued Florida and the federal government, arguing that Florida's refusal to recognize their marriage, and the federal ] (DOMA), were violations of their rights under the United States Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal in ''Baker'' was binding on the district court—which meant that the District Court was required to uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | == ''Wilson v. Ake'' == | ||
| On January 19, 2005 in Florida, an attack against the Federal ], 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. | |||
| ==External links== | ==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 | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 02:51, 3 November 2005
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court declined to review that holding, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissing the appeal "for want of substantial federal question".
Facts
In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied to the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County District Court, Gerald R. Nelson, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on the sole grounds that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell then sued Nelson, arguing that Minnesota law permitted same-sex marriages, and that Nelson's interpretation that it did not violated their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".
Opinion of the court
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "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".
Subsequent history
Wilson v. Ake
Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v. Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In that case, two Florida women, married the previous summer in Massachusetts, sued Florida and the federal government, arguing that Florida's refusal to recognize their marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), were violations of their rights under the United States Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal in Baker was binding on the district court—which meant that the District Court was required to uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional.
External links
- Text of Baker v. Nelson
- Baker and McConnell's jurisdictional statement filing with the U.S. Supreme Court
- Text of Wilson v. Ake