Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A party to the marriage is forbidden to marry as a result of losing their civil rights, such as for conviction of a crime. The form of the marriage is forbidden by statute – such as same-sex marriage (in some jurisdictions) or group marriage. Attempts to espouse a Ford motorcar [5] or a "porn-filled Apple computer" [6] have been dismissed as ...
The marriage is valid but is subject to cancellation if contested in court by one of the parties to the marriage. A voidable marriage is contrasted with a void marriage, which is one that is on its face unlawful and therefore legally has no effect, whether or not one of the parties challenges the marriage.
The marriage is valid, but may be annulled if contested in court by one of the parties to the marriage. The petition to void the marriage must be brought by one of the parties to the marriage, and a voidable marriage thus cannot be annulled after the death of one of the parties.
The measure asks voters to change the California Constitution to enshrine a "fundamental right to marry" and remove language that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
California voters will decide in 2024 whether to enshrine the right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution, a chance for them to permanently remove an inactive ban on same-sex marriage ...
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. (a) The right to marry is a fundamental right. (b) This section is in furtherance of both of the following: (1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy guaranteed by Section 1.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance [3] of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which found the ban in 2000 on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional in 2010 by a federal court on different grounds ...