翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Adams Township, Nemaha County, Kansas
・ Adams Township, Ohio
・ Adams Township, Parke County, Indiana
・ Adams Township, Pennsylvania
・ Adams Township, Ripley County, Indiana
・ Adams Township, Seneca County, Ohio
・ Adams Township, Snyder County, Pennsylvania
・ Adams Township, South Dakota
・ Adams Township, Walsh County, North Dakota
・ Adams Township, Wapello County, Iowa
・ Adams Township, Warren County, Indiana
・ Adams Township, Washington County, Ohio
・ Adams v Cape Industries plc
・ Adams v Lindsell
・ Adams v. Burke
Adams v. Howerton
・ Adams v. Robertson
・ Adams v. Tanner
・ Adams v. Texas
・ Adams v. United States
・ Adams Vacuum & Sewing building
・ Adams Violin Concerto
・ Adams Wildlife Sanctuary
・ Adams Woodframe Grain Elevator
・ Adams' Arkansas Infantry Regiment
・ Adams' Grammar School
・ Adams' Rangers
・ Adams's catalyst
・ Adams, Adams County, Wisconsin
・ Adams, California


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Adams v. Howerton : ウィキペディア英語版
Adams v. Howerton

Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), ''cert. denied'', 458 U.S. 1111 (1982) is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that the term "spouse" refers to an opposite-sex partner for the purposes of immigration law and that this definition meets rational basis review. It was the first U.S. lawsuit to seek recognition of a same-sex marriage by the federal government.
==Lawsuit==
In 1975, Richard Frank Adams, an American citizen, and Anthony Corbett Sullivan, an alien from Australia, were one of several same-sex couples that received marriage licenses from the clerk of Boulder County, Colorado. Adams then petitioned the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for classification of Sullivan as an immediate relative of Adams, on the basis that they were married under Colorado law. The petition was initially denied, with a letter stating that "(and Sullivan ) have failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots." A revised letter was later sent, explaining that "() marriage between two males is invalid for immigration purposes and cannot be considered a bona fide marital relationship since neither party to the marriage can perform the female functions in marriage." After the INS petition was ultimately denied, they filed suit against the INS in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that their marriage was valid under both Colorado law and immigration law, and that failure to recognize its validity violated the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process and equal protection components.
The district court rejected the plaintiffs' claims, noting that "Congress in its immigration statutes is not obligated to follow the law of the place where the marriage was contracted". The court also held that under Colorado law marriage is a union of "a man and a woman", agreeing with the state attorney general's opinion, and also noted that "()he Colorado statutes don't specifically allow, nor do they specifically prohibit, marriages between persons of the same sex." It also held that "()he legal protection and special status afforded to marriage (being defined as an union of persons of different sex) has historically ... been rationalized as being for the purpose of encouraging the propagation of the race."
Regarding the constitutional claims, it held that if federal law governs, then "the constitutional challenge is rejected as insubstantial", because "Congress has virtually plenary power in immigration matters and is not bound by otherwise applicable equal protection requirements". If state law governs, the court held that "the Colorado state law which rejects a purported marriage between persons of the same sex does not violate the due process or the equal protection clause of the federal constitution", on the basis that the Supreme Court's decision in ''Baker v. Nelson'', 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct 37 (1972), "is of paramount importance because a state court judgment prohibiting two people of the same sex from marrying each other was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court on various constitutional grounds, including due process and equal protection. The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question. Such a dismissal is an important adjudication on the merits." The court rejected the counterargument "that some persons are allowed to marry and their union is given full recognition and constitutional protection even though the above stated justification—procreation—is not possible" because "if the classification of the group who may validly marry is overinclusive, it does not affect the validity of the classification".〔(''Adams v. Howerton'', 486 F. Supp. 1119 (C.D.Cal.1980) ) Via Leagle. Accessed July 30, 2011〕

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Adams v. Howerton」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.