WILSON V. AKE 354 F.Supp.2d 1298 (2005) CASE BRIEF

WILSON V. AKE

354 F.Supp.2d 1298 (2005)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Wilson (Ps) are a lesbian couple who were legally married in Massachusetts. Ps sued Ake (D), a circuit court clerk and the United States Attorney General, seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C.S. 7, 28 U.S.C.S. 1738C, and Fla. Stat. ch. 741.212 were unconstitutional. D moved to dismiss.

FACTS: Ps are a lesbian couple who reside together in Florida. Ps were legally married in the State of Massachusetts and possess a valid marriage license from that State. Ps presented their Massachusetts marriage license to a Deputy Clerk at the Clerk of the Circuit Court's Office in Hillsborough County asking for 'acceptance of the valid and legal Massachusetts marriage license.' Their demand was refused by D who stated that according to Federal and Florida law, the Clerk is not allowed to recognize, for marriage purposes, the Massachusetts marriage license, because Federal and Florida law prohibit such recognition.' Ps then filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment asking this Court to declare the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and certain Florida Statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement. Under the DOMA held that states, Indian tribes and territorial governments need not be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. Under the Act, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 U.S.C. 7. Ps allege that the two statutes violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Ps argue that twelve United States Supreme Court cases demonstrate a recent trend by the United States Supreme Court to expand 'the fundamental liberty of personal autonomy in connection with one's intimate affairs and family relations.' Ashcroft (D) moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. Ps' complaint is barred as a matter of law because DOMA does not infringe on any of Ps' fundamental rights and is a legitimate exercise of the power granted to Congress by the Full Faith and Credit 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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner