|
''Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson'', 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Baker appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."〔409 U.S. 810 (1972)〕 Because the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not ''certiorari''), the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established ''Baker v. Nelson'' as precedent,〔Project, ''Developments in the Law: The Constitution and the Family,'' 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1156, 1274 (1980) (discussing ''Baker's'' posture as precedent); ''see, e.g.'' Pamela R. Winnick, Comment, ''The Precedential Weight of a Dismissal by the Supreme Court for Want of a Substantial Federal Question: Some Implications of Hicks v. Miranda,'' 76 Colum. L. Rev. 508, 511 (1976) ("a dismissal by the Supreme Court is an adjudication on the merits ... a lower federal court must consider itself bound by the dismissal when a similar challenge comes before it")〕 though the extent of its precedential effect had been subject to debate.〔Coyle, Marcia. (The first case, 40 years on ), ''The National Law Journal'', August 23, 2010〕 On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly overruled ''Baker'' in ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' making same-sex marriage legal nationwide.〔''(Obergefell v. Hodges )'', No. 14-556, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).〕 In May 2013, Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage and it took effect on August 1, 2013. == Facts and trial == On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. The clerk of the Hennepin County District Court, Gerald Nelson, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. The couple filed suit in district court to force Nelson to issue the license.〔Appellant's Jurisdictional Statement, ''Baker v. Nelson,'' Supreme Court docket no. 71-1027, at 3-4 (statement of the case); ''Court Won't Let Men Wed,'' N.Y. Times, Jan. 10, 1971 at 65.〕 The couple first contended that Minnesota's marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes. If the court were to construe the statutes to require different-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution:〔Appellant's Jurisdictional Statement, ''Baker v. Nelson'' at 6 (how the federal questions were raised); ''Baker v. Nelson,'' 191 N.W.2d 185, 185-86 (Minn. 1971); ''The Legality of Homosexual Marriage,'' 82 Yale L.J. 573, 573-74 (1973).〕 * First Amendment (freedom of speech and of association), * Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), * Ninth Amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), and * Fourteenth Amendment (fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Protection Clause). The trial court dismissed the couple's claims and ordered the clerk not to issue the license.〔''Baker,'' 191 N.W.2d at 185.〕 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「Baker v. Nelson」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|