poor straight couples to marry. Outcome Law more Law survives Law survives Law Survives; ok to rigorous RB; SS (right to marry traditional RB restrict marriage to couples must not infringed opposite-sex couples be allowed to at all—Gays MARRY (not DP can still marry or Civil Unions) OS individuals.) Impact Influential for Influential in Influential in Influential for courts courts coming adoption cases adoption coming out against out in favor of cases gay marriage gay marriage - Hernandez v. Robles (NY) Heavily influenced by Cordy’s dissent from Goodridge Apply Traditional RB Buys the accidental/responsible procreation argument Marriage Restriction upheld Dissenting Judge says that there are enough marriage licenses to go around so Resources” is a stupid argument—picked up on by Judge Walker in “Conserving Perry - In re Marriage Cases (Cal.) Interesting because here the fight is over terminology: Domestic Partnership v Marriage SDP Right at stake: Fundamental Right to Marry Triggers tangible benefits: parental rights, community property, tax filings, health insurance Triggers social benefits/significance: relationship afforded dignity, respect, and recognition EP Class: Marriage v. Domestic Partnership In reality though, boils down to Sexual orientation Note: Sex discrimination argument rejected because this is not harm to women, and the discrimination is REALLY based on Sexual Orientation Level of Scrutiny STRICT SO is a suspect class under CA constitution—similar to Kerrigan analysis with the real action at the political power factor FR triggered Governmental Interests:
poor straight couples to marry. Outcome Law more rigorous RB; SS couples must be allowed to MARRY (not DP or Civil Unions) Law survives (right to marry not infringed at all—Gays can still marry OS individuals.) Law survives traditional RB Law Survives; ok to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples Impact Influential for courts coming out in favor of gay marriage Influential in adoption cases Influential in adoption cases Influential for courts coming out against gay marriage - Hernandez v. Robles (NY) Heavily influenced by Cordy’s dissent from Goodridge Apply Traditional RB Buys the accidental/responsible procreation argument Marriage Restriction upheld Dissenting Judge says that there are enough marriage licenses to go around so “Conserving Resources” is a stupid argument—picked up on by Judge Walker in Perry - In re Marriage Cases (Cal.) Interesting because here the fight is over terminology: Domestic Partnership v Marriage SDP Right at stake: Fundamental Right to Marry Triggers tangible benefits: parental rights, community property, tax filings, health insurance Triggers social benefits/significance: relationship afforded dignity, respect, and recognition EP Class: Marriage v. Domestic Partnership In reality though, boils down to Sexual orientation Note: Sex discrimination argument rejected because this is not harm to women, and the discrimination is REALLY based on Sexual Orientation Level of Scrutiny STRICT SO is a suspect class under CA constitution—similar to Kerrigan analysis with the real action at the political power factor FR triggered Governmental Interests: