PERRY V. BROWN.
671 F.3d 1052 (2012)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Perry (P) same-sex couples sued County and State officials in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C.S.
1983, alleging that Proposition 8, Cal. Const. art. I, 7.5, violated the Fourteenth
Amendment.
FACTS: California created the designation 'domestic partnership' for 'two adults who have
chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual
caring.' The State substantially expanded the rights of domestic partners. The California
Supreme Court held the statutes to be unconstitutional, for two independent reasons. The
court held that the fundamental right to marry provided by the California Constitution could
not be denied to same-sex couples, who are guaranteed 'the same substantive constitutional
rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into
a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the
constitutionally based incidents of marriage.' It then held 'that an individual's homosexual
orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or restricting the
individual's legal rights.' California residents decided to overturn the California Supreme
Court decision and sponsored Proposition 8. It changes the California Constitution to
eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.' It passed. Ps filed this
action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in May 2009, after being denied marriage licenses by the
County Clerks of Alameda County and Los Angeles County. Prior to November 4, 2008, the
California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex
couples alike. The People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state
constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The district court held
Proposition 8 unconstitutional for two reasons: first, it deprives same-sex couples of the
fundamental right to marry, which is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, and second, it
excludes same-sex couples from state-sponsored marriage while allowing opposite-sex couples
access to that honored status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment