Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.149.172.90 (talk) at 01:59, 29 October 2005 (→Wilson V Ake). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Baker V Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Minnesota Supreme Court in its decision upholding traditional opposite sex marriage. Baker V Nelson expressely establishes 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. Upon Baker and McConnell losing their case they appealed to the United States Supreme Court Invoking the Supreme Court's then-mandatory appellate jurisdiction, in 28 United States Code ' 1257(2) (repealed in 1980).

Result

Upon review, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of substantial federal question." 409 U.S. 810 (1972).

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 V Nelson (Citation Omitted).

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... Baker V Nelson (Citation Omitted). It is also noted that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment. Baker V Nelson (Citation Omitted).

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." Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914). Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141 (1940), and Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Baker also expressly distinguishes 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 one Man and One Woman, who happened to be of a different race.

As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated, which was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court: "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." Baker V Nelson (Citation Omitted).

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, 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

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