Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Perez v. Sharp, [1] also known as Perez v. Lippold or Perez v.Moroney, is a 1948 case decided by the Supreme Court of California in which the court held by a 4–3 majority that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This stricture held until 1948, at which point the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage, recognizing marriage as a fundamental right: Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.
The first legally-recognized same-sex marriage occurred in Minneapolis, [3] Minnesota, in 1971. [4] On June 26, 2015, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court overturned Baker v. Nelson and ruled that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens, and thus legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a California woman who said her rights were violated after federal officials refused to allow her husband into the country, in part, because of the way ...
The line of same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses stretched for blocks around San Francisco's City Hall in February 2004. In the 2004 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush spoke against "activist judges [...] redefining marriage by court order;" this was interpreted as a response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in ...
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.
In December 2006, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases and held oral argument on March 4, 2008, consolidating the cases as In re Marriage Cases. [24] The Court ruled on May 15, 2008, that Proposition 22 violated the state Constitution and was therefore invalid. [25]
The world cannot keep its promise to end child marriage by year 2030 if California continues to hold up progress.