The Ninth Judicial District upheld the District Court`s decision, but for radically different reasons, which some saw as an acknowledgement of the shortcomings of the District Court`s procedure. [13] Without deciding whether the U.S. Constitution actually requires states to recognize same-sex relationships as a „marriage,” the Ninth Circuit, in a decision drafted by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, concluded that Proposition 8 violated the Constitution by „depriving” same-sex couples of the right to marry previously recognized in California — a right that had been recognized by court order for a full five months. which many citizens considered illegitimate. This long-standing view was confirmed by the sociological and anthropological evidence included in the trial protocol. For example, the work of the late Claude Lévi-Strauss, „father of modern anthropology”[44] and former dean of the Académie française, is part of the judicial file and contains this observation: „[T]he family – based on a more or less permanent but socially recognized union of two individuals of different sexes who create a household and give birth and raise children – seems to be a practically universal phenomenon. present in all kinds of companies. [45] Marriage is therefore „a social institution with a biological basis,” he writes in another book. [46] Historian G.
Robina Quale`s comprehensive sociological study of the development of marriage from prehistory to the present day, which is also part of the trial protocol, shows that „marriage as the socially recognized union of a particular man with a particular woman and his descendants is found in all societies.” [47] In 2005, the legislature passed legislation that directly violated Proposition 22:A.B. 849, which would have eliminated the gender requirement of section 300 of the Family Code. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the bill for violating the state`s constitutional requirement that lawmakers cannot repeal legislative initiatives passed by the people. Meanwhile, the mayor of San Francisco (now lieutenant governor) took the initiative to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in direct violation of Proposition 22. Although the California Supreme Court rejected this blatant disregard for the law,[5] it ultimately ruled that Proposition 22 violated the state constitution. [6] Some of the evidence presented at the Hollingsworth trial is not encouraging. As feminist professor Ellen Willis has admitted, redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships „will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into one`s heart.” [64] This revolt is, as Andrew Cherlin, professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, explains, „the latest development in the deinstitutionalization of marriage,” „the weakening of social norms that affect people`s behavior in marriage.” Marriage.
[65] In other words, the redefinition of marriage to same-sex relationships may well be an experiment of civilizational proportions. One of the biggest benefits of a traditional marriage is inheritance law. If a partner dies suddenly and their partnership is not legally recognized, the surviving partner could lose all rights or inheritance rights. I am not in favour of same-sex marriage or same-sex partnerships because both undermine traditional marriage. By allowing same-sex marriage, there is no reason to ban polygamy or other „creative marriages.” I firmly believe that only traditional marriage between a man and a woman should be legally recognized by the state. While common-law couples can enjoy the financial and legal benefits of marriage in most cases, they can also be vulnerable to some of the potential drawbacks. For example, if one spouse buys property and the other spouse is not in the deed, the property can be sold without their consent. To get around this, large assets should be purchased through condominium agreements.
As a safety precaution, duties and rights should be reviewed with a lawyer who understands marriage under the common law. The threshold review. A threshold study is also used to distinguish between romantic and same-sex marriage. As the Supreme Court has often acknowledged, „the equality safeguard clause . is essentially a direction in which all people in a similar situation should be treated equally. [30] „The Constitution does not require that things which differ in fact or opinion be lawfully treated as if they were identical.” [31] Therefore, one of the issues in Windsor and Hollingsworth is whether same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are in a similar situation. This is a „threshold study” carried out before the application of the equality clause, since the equality clause is not triggered even if the relationships in question are not in a similar situation. [32] Unlike previous eras, today`s traditional marriage includes wives who are the breadwinners, spouses who have equal custody rights, and the law that criminalizes domestic violence between spouses. All marriage cases – Windsor, the many other DOMA Article 3 cases, one DOMA Article 2 case,[20] Hollingsworth, and several others, such as the challenge to Arizona`s decision to reduce health care services recently provided to domestic partners (heterosexual and homosexual) – involve two fundamental constitutional concepts. First, whether the laws at issue prohibit the exercise of the fundamental right to marry in violation of the procedural clause? Second, it determines whether they treat certain people differently because of their sexual orientation and thus violate the equality clause. [21] Couples leaving the state in which they entered into a common-law relationship should be aware that all states recognize a common-law marriage that a couple has lawfully entered into in another state.
Nevertheless, after the move, they may want to sit down with a lawyer in their new state to ensure that they comply with the legal obligations required to enforce their rights as a married couple.